The purpose of this meeting is to consider the Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) Bill 2005 which was referred to the select committee by the Dáil on 16 February. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, and wish him every success in his new portfolio. The committee looks forward to working with him. I propose that the committee sit until it concludes its consideration of the Bill. Is that agreed? Agreed.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 22 are consequential on amendment No. 17; amendments Nos. 3, 4, 8, 12 and 18 are related to amendment No. 17; amendment No. 19 is consequential on amendment No. 3, while amendment No. 23 is consequential on amendment No. 18. Is it agreed that amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, 8, 12, 17 to 19, inclusive, 22 and 23 be discussed together? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, before section 1, to insert the following new section:
"1.—In this Act—
"the Act of 1993" means the Irish Aviation Authority Act 1993;
"the Act of 1998" means the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998.".
This is a procedural amendment to define the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998. It is dependent on the passing of amendment No. 4. Its purpose was discussed at great length on Second Stage and in the Seanad. The previous Minister of State at the Department of Transport agreed to consider the matter.
The amendment would remove liability from aircraft owners as distinct from aircraft operators who can show that charges were incurred by an operator of an aircraft or a lessee. It is only reasonable that the lessee should liable for any fees he or she incurs. As the Bill stands, charges are entirely outside the control of the aircraft owner but could still fall at his or her door. In natural justice this is completely unfair and inequitable. Just as a person who hires a car is responsible for paying a road toll or a speeding or parking fine, so should the company which leases an aeroplane be responsible for any charges incurred from EUROCONTROL as a result of flying the aircraft. This is probably our last opportunity to deal with a matter that seems extremely unfair and unnecessary.
We have discussed this matter at length. The previous Minister of State speaking in the Seanad and the present Minister of State have responded to a certain extent. However, their responses were inadequate. The concern in the industry is that this legislation will allow EUROCONTROL to go further than it currently does and will make it easier for it to take action against customers who fail to pay charges, particularly those who lease aircraft. This would put Ireland in a weaker position than other countries as domestic legislation in most other countries does not go as far as the Bill proposes, which seems completely unnecessary. A comparison has been made with a tenant renting a house. If the tenant does not pay the ESB bill, the ESB does not take ownership of the house. It will pursue the tenant who owes the money. The owner of the asset should not be brought into the matter. There is no justification and it does not happen in many other European countries.
The Bill provides for different treatment for those who own and operate aircraft compared with those who lease aircraft to another operator. We should have a level playing pitch in the industry. I ask the Minister of State to reconsider his position. His comments indicated that he did not envisage a major issue in this regard. When Minister of State, Deputy Callely provided considerable comfort for those involved in the industry that their concerns would be addressed. Unfortunately, these concerns have yet to be addressed by way of amendments to the Bill.
My response will deal with all the amendments which have been grouped together.
Before the Minister of State replies, I would like to speak to amendment No. 17. While it deals with a different matter, it is similar in nature. It seeks to alleviate the liability of aircraft owners for charges incurred by persons or companies which have rented aircraft. Its effect would be to ensure EUROCONTROL could not seize or sell the assets of any aircraft in satisfaction of an outstanding debt where that debt had not been incurred by the owner. Insisting on this additional penalty on the lessee or owner of an aircraft goes beyond legislative requirements and places Ireland and those involved in the aviation industry here at a disadvantage.
Amendment No. 19 is a technical amendment to provide a collective citation for the Air Navigation and Transport Acts, with which I presume the Minister of State has no difficulty.
I thank the Chairman for his very kind comments. I look forward to working with him and the committee during my tenure in the Department of Transport.
This matter was debated on Second Stage when Deputies Mitchell and Shortall highlighted the issues involved. All of the amendments arise from concerns expressed to me and the Department about the powers of detention and sale of aircraft for the non-payment of airport, air navigation and communications charges. Ireland has taken a policy decision not to impose the provisions of the revised EUROCONTROL convention on joint and several liability in the case of unpaid EUROCONTROL charges. The Bill does not provide for these provisions in Annex 4 of the revised convention.
The passage of the Bill in its current form will not increase our existing powers to detain and sell aircraft for unpaid charges. These provisions have been in place since 1988 and I do not propose to change them. However, a number of leasing companies have voiced their concern about the powers contained in earlier Acts dating from 1988 and have asked that they be modified in the Bill. I consulted the Office of the Attorney General and other interested parties, namely, the Irish Aviation Authority, the Dublin Airport Authority and EUROCONTROL, all of which argued against the removal or dilution of the existing powers of detention and sale.
I am advised that the detention and sale provisions in Irish law are similar to those in law in the United Kingdom which like Ireland has a common law system. EUROCONTROL has advised that Greece also has a detention procedure and that Cyprus has legislation to become effective on the entry into force of the revised convention which provides for the detention of aircraft until judicial measures are taken against the operator or owner. EUROCONTROL has also indicated that member states with civil law systems have similar powers to seize aircraft for the non-payment of debts. All of these procedures, whether under common or civil law, have the same effect of freezing the asset in question and making it available as security for the payment of a debt. It has worked well since 1988 to date.
For whom?
I cannot accept the proposed amendments. There is a safeguard for an owner in the selling of the aircraft for the purpose of meeting a debt to EUROCONTROL in respect of the liability of an operator. To sell an aircraft an application must be made to the High Court and the registered owner needs to be on notice about the proposed sale. It is not a question of detention, confiscation and sale. The legislation specifies that an application must be made to the courts. In addition, it is not a procedure that has been resorted to lightly. There has been no case of an aircraft being detained and subsequently sold owing to non-payment of a debt to EUROCONTROL. I make it clear that the availability of such powers is regarded as having a significant deterrent effect. Aircraft leasing companies can afford themselves financial protection by building provisions into their lease arrangements with aircraft operators. This facility is not available to the air traffic control provider when doing business with airlines. In practice, an aircraft leaser is usually in a better position than an airport authority or air traffic control provider to monitor the financial status of the operator, as it can specify requirements in the aircraft lease.
Another reason is that an amendment to the legislation would give rise to differential legal treatment of leased and owned aircraft, which would be inappropriate. The provisions apply equally to debts incurred by airline companies for EUROCONTROL or airport charges. Any change in the legislative provisions relating to the former would give rise to differential treatment of air navigation and airport charges. That would amount to arbitrary discrimination between service providers for airlines and would not be appropriate.
Following consideration and having taken into account views expressed by the Attorney General, Dublin Airport Authority, EUROCONTROL, the Irish Aviation Authority, as well as this House, I have decided not to accept the amendments which would change thestatus quo that has worked well since 1988.
I will respond to some of the Minister of State's points. He said the aircraft leasing company would be on notice in the event of the aircraft being seized and that nothing would happen in the High Court without its being aware of it. However, it is not of much use to a leasing company to be on notice. It still has to go along and pick up the tab for someone else. That is of no assistance to it.
The Minister of State also mentioned a possible deterrent effect, but there is no evidence whatsoever of this. Many measures could be used for their deterrent effect such as publishing the names of defaulters, but I have no idea why the Minister of State suggests there is such an effect in this case, since there is no evidence. He also said aircraft leasing companies could afford themselves financial protection by building provisions into their lease agreements. That is not the case, since leasing companies, banks, manufacturers and maintenance facilities rely on their contracts to collect what is due to them, as do airport authorities.
The Minister of State spoke of the Dublin Airport Authority and the Irish Aviation Authority supporting his position, but most interests in the industry, including its umbrella group, are seeking reform in the area and it seems that he has completely ignored their legitimate concerns. The Dublin Airport Authority has its own contractual terms and conditions of use, under which, for example, it makes its own credit assessment that allows a 30-day payment deadline. The charges must be paid before the aircraft may depart. However, if credit is given but not honoured, not only does the Dublin Airport Authority sue the airline, it may charge interest on the original charges at a rate of 7% above the ECB rate. EUROCONTROL has a statutory right to collect the overflight charge with interest and an international right of suit against the operator for non-payment. These charges are very significant and there is no reason under the sun that the leasing company should be saddled with them. On the basis of the principle of natural justice on which all other contracts operate, one will never have a lessee or tenant able to pass on costs and charges to the owner of the asset. I cannot see why that should happen in this case. There is no doubt the legislation will strengthen EUROCONTROL's hand to do this.
We hear and talk a great deal about house-building, development land and so on, and are informed of difficulties regarding property rights in the Constitution, since they are paramount and sacrosanct. However, the Government does not seem to have the same regard for the property rights of airport leasing companies. What about their prerogative to vindicate their right to hold property and to have this right protected in law? It is very hard to see how a similar argument might be used in any other part of commerce.
Another aspect is that the proposed amendments apply to both Dublin Airport Authority and EUROCONTROL charges. There would not be any discrimination and each would have the right to enforce its charges against the property of the defaulting airline, subject only to respecting prior registered mortgages. I cannot see any difficulty in this. I ask the Minister of State once again to show due regard to the genuine concerns expressed right across the industry. They were voiced very strongly to the Minister of State, his predecessor and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen. Having consulted their own agencies, they seem to have decided to plough on regardless, completely ignoring the concerns expressed to them.
If the Bill is passed in its present form, it is inevitable there will be legal challenges to it, since the situation could not obtain in any other sector that a person who owned an asset would be held liable for the unpaid debts of someone leasing or renting it. That would not stand up and it is inevitable it will be challenged. It is weak legislation. This is not the way we should be going. I again ask the Minister of State to reconsider.
I will not go over Deputy Shortall's very well made points again, merely to point out that I agree with them.
The Minister of State said it was a deterrent to defaulting, but the real deterrent is timely collection on behalf of EUROCONTROL and a refusal of future service very early before large bills have been accumulated. The deterrent that it will provide is to people bringing their aircraft into Ireland for whatever reason — the primary reason for our purposes being for maintenance and repairs.
Aircraft are leased outside of Ireland. Anyone who owns an aircraft, an engine or any part thereof will feel Ireland is a riskier place in which to have his or her aeroplane than anywhere else in Europe. That puts a barrier around us that we do not need. From the perspective of EUROCONTROL, it has powers that go beyond the conventional powers of company law. There is no need to give it such additional powers.
If we take the corollary of what the Deputies suggest, pursuing debts for EUROCONTROL contractually, that could happen in several jurisdictions. That has never been implemented in the collecting of air traffic control debts, although it has happened a few times for airport charges. In defence of the line I am pursuing — to leave the legislation as it has stood since 1998 — services are provided for all aircraft and airspace in which air navigation services are provided, as well as safety reasons. There is no option to decline to provide air navigation services for aircraft. It cannot be done, since there are no means in place. The authority, as a provider of air navigation services, cannot, therefore, take the steps that a prudent business would take to protect its commercial interests. That is what makes it different from other businesses.
Leasing arrangements are commonplace in the aviation industry, being used for operational, financial and other reasons. If the action that may be taken against aircraft subject to lease is severely restricted, the powers of air navigation service providers to enforce their charges are similarly restricted.
While the authority has not exercised the powers of detention and sale provided, the Irish Aviation Authority has suggested their availability has strengthened its position and is a deterrent to non-payment. EUROCONTROL annually recovers 99% ofen route charges on behalf of member states, including Ireland. The charges are reimbursed to each member state on a pro rata basis, according to the number of flights in its territory. In 2004 Ireland recouped some €88 million in such charges. This high success rate is due to the collective enforcement measures made available in member states.
I repeat that the threat of detention alone has a substantial deterrent effect and the Bill will not change anything in this respect. This has been in place since 1998 and worked well. In practical terms, a recovery rate of 99% is almost the same as 100%. I have considered the views expressed by the Deputies on Committee Stage, as well as in the Dáil Chamber. Unfortunately, I am not prepared to accept the amendments.
The Dublin Airport Authority and EUROCONTROL have the power to limit the amount of credit available and to call in debts sooner than they do. Does the Minister of State have a view on their present mode of operation, whereby they allow large debts to be run up? Does he not think they should take action at a much earlier stage to avoid the seizing of assets? Would it not be better if the agencies kept control of debts? If that was the case, they would not be obliged to have recourse to the seizing of assets. As I stated, this hurts the leasing company, not necessarily the operator. Why will the Minister of State not take such an approach? What are his views on the extent to which the Dublin Airport Authority and EUROCONTROL allow such major bills to mount up?
In my short time in the Department my officials have convinced me that these arrangements are not poor. They are business-like and the agencies involved keep control. The proof of this is that EUROCONTROL recovers 99% of charges on behalf of member states, including Ireland. Subsequently, the charges are reimbursed on apro rata basis to member states. The most up-to-date information available to me is for 2004 when €88 million was reimbursed to this country as a result of good management and a business-like attitude. There is nothing to suggest that either the authority or EUROCONTROL extends large amounts of credit to any company.
Any changes to this process would be difficult to justify. Does the Deputy suggest the making of changes might improve the recovery rate from 99% to 100%? I am sure the agencies involved will pursue the outstanding 1%. They have a business-like attitude. I am unaware of many other businesses in Ireland or globally which have such a success rate.
I referred, not to the recovery rates, but to the extent to which the two agencies allow debts to run up before taking action to recover what is owed to them. In that context, there is no justification for penalising the aircraft leasing company while so doing. Regrettably, it is clear the Minister of State will not budge in this respect.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.—Nothing in Section 40(13) the Air Navigation & Transport (Amendment) Act 1998 shall (i) permit the detention or sale of any aircraft that is not owned by the operator who is liable for the charge or (ii) prejudice any right of a Company to recover any charges, or any part thereof, by action. Any sale ordered under this section shall be on such terms as to preserve the priority and interests of any third parties with an interest in the aircraft or any part of it (including equipment, stores and documents) at the time the aircraft was detained.".
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.—Ireland's ratification of the protocol is subject to a reservation in relation to Articles 5, 6 and 9 of Annex IV ("Provisions Relating to the Common Route Charges System") in that Ireland declares that the provisions for the lien or the joint and several liability (under Article 5) and the detention and sale of aircraft (including equipment, spare parts, fuel, stores and documents) other than those legally and beneficially owned by the operator that is liable for the charge (under Articles 6 and 9) shall not apply.".
Amendment No. 5 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, are consequential on amendment No. 20. Therefore, amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, and 20 will be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, to delete lines 11 to 15 and substitute the following:
"Schedule 1 to the Aviation Act 2006), the Final Act and Protocol on the accession of the European Community to the Eurocontrol Convention signed at Brussels on 8 October 2002 (the text of which is set out for convenience of reference in the English language in Schedule 2 to the Aviation Act 2006), and by any other protocol or other instrument which may be signed after the passing of the Aviation Act 2006;”,”.
This amendment is necessary to clarify that the protocol on the accession of the European Community to the EUROCONTROL convention is not an amendment to the EUROCONTRON convention. I have also taken the opportunity to take on board amendments Nos. 6 and 7 which have been proposed by Deputy Shortall. The Deputy's amendments are incorporated in the amendment. I also propose to accept amendment No. 20 tabled by the Deputy as it is prudent to include the text of the EU protocol as a Schedule to the Bill. Ireland will be required to provide separate instruments of ratification for the revised convention and the European Union's accession protocol.
I thank the Minister of State for taking on board the sentiments expressed in my amendments.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
"(c) in section 43 by adding the following new subsection (3)—
"(3) Nothing in this section shall create a liability on the owner of an aircraft unless that owner was also the operator of the aircraft at the time the charge was incurred, except where the owner is unable to establish that some other person was the operator at that time.".".
Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, paragraph (c)(i), line 27, to delete “subsection 3(b)(i)” and substitute “subsection (3)(b)(i)”.
I would like to correct typographical errors.
I thank the Deputy for her vigilance and attention to detail.
I have a sad life.
I accept the amendments.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 4, paragraph (c)(i), line 28, to delete “and “6 months” for “12 months””.
The legislation reduces the maximum prison sentence for offences under section 74(3)(b)(i) from 12 to six months. These offences include those relating to safety under section 36, as well as the failure to disclose interests under the ethics provisions. It is not a good idea to reduce the sentence in this way. It should remain at 12 months.
I am taking the opportunity afforded by the Bill to update the penalties under the Irish Aviation Authority Act 1993. Section 74(3)(b)(i) provides that a person shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both. I propose to amend the penalty on summary conviction from £1,000 to €5,000 but imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months should only be applied in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, a term of six months is more appropriate. A 12-month sentence would be disproportionate. I have reflected this by increasing the fine from £1,000 to €5,000.
I accept the Minister of State's comments.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 4, paragraph (c)(ii), line 29, to delete “subsection 3(b)(ii)” and substitute “subsection (3)(b)(ii)”.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 4, subsection (1), between lines 45 and 46, to insert the following:
"(a) in section 43 (2), by inserting “Nothing in this section shall create a liability on the owner of an aircraft unless that owner was also the operator of the aircraft at the time the charge was incurred, except where the owner is unable to establish that some other person was the operator at that time.”.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 21 are consequential on amendments Nos. 13 and 14. All will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 7, before section 4, to insert the following new section:
"4.—The Aer Lingus Act 2004 is amended by inserting, after section 7, the following new section:
"7A.—(1) Notwithstanding section 13(2) and the Aer Lingus Act 2004 (Commencement of Certain Provisions) Order 2005—
(a) section 2 (in so far as it relates to section 5(2) of the Air Companies (Amendment) Act 1993), and
(b) section 7, are deemed to have come into operation on 19 August 2004.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the issue of shares in Aer Lingus Group public limited company on 20 August 2004 is confirmed and deemed always to have had full effect.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect any proceedings commenced in any court concerning the validity of the issue of shares in the Company under section 7 where those proceedings were commenced before 8 March 2006.".".
This amendment is a technical provision to avoid doubt. It stems from an administrative oversight concerning the commencement of sections of the Aer Lingus Act 2004 which provides, among other matters, for the establishment of employee share ownership schemes. Based on the authority provided, shares representing 9.9% of the issued share capital of Aer Lingus were transferred to the ESOT on 20 August 2004. The establishment of the scheme formed part of the agreement with the trade unions on radical transformation measures provided for in the company's survival plan, developed in the aftermath of the tragic terrorist attacks of September 2001 and the ensuing crisis in the aviation industry. The transfer of shares took place in the context of an agreement reached by the Ministers for Transport and Finance, the company, the trustees of the employee share ownership programme and the trade unions.
A year later it came to light that the relevant provisions of the Act had not been commenced before the share transfer took place. The Aer Lingus Act 2004 (Commencement of Certain Provisions) Order 2005 was subsequently signed by the Minister on 28 September 2005. The order provided for the coming into operation of section 7 of the Act which provides for the establishment by the company of employee shareholding schemes and the transfer of shares to them, as well as section 2 of the Act concerning the repeal of section 5(2) of the Air Companies (Amendment) Act 1993 which imposed a cap of 5% on the proportion of company shares that could be held by employee share ownership schemes. Nevertheless, there remained the potential for a doubt to be cast on the shares transferred to the schemes, since the transfer took place before the relevant sections of the Act came into operation. There are different legal opinions on the question of whether such a doubt could be borne out. Having considered the options and sought further advice from the Office of the Attorney General, it is considered preferable that the potential doubt should be removed by making a provision in primary legislation to confirm the ESOT's entitlement to shares. The amendment, therefore, provides that the relevant sections of the Act should be deemed to have commenced on 19 August 2004, the day before the transfer of the shares to the ESOT. This will confirm that all those who expect to receive shares in Aer Lingus under the scheme will have their expectations fulfilled, as intended, in accordance with the agreement reached between the Ministers for Transport and Finance, the company and the trade unions and the intention underlying the 2004 Act.
Amendment No. 14 deals with denied boarding and proposes to insert a new definition in the Aviation Regulation Act 2001, Regulation EC 261/2004, known as the denied boarding regulation. Since it is intended that the Bill will refer to this regulation, it is necessary to define it in the Bill. The amendment also designates the Commission for Aviation Regulation, CAR, as the body to enforce the denied boarding regulations. The CAR's role is to enforce the EU regulation and receive complaints from passengers in cases where an airline fails to meet its obligations under the regulation. The commission was designated the denied boarding enforcement body under the European Communities (Compensation and Assistance to Air Passengers) (Denied Boarding, Cancellation or Long Delays of Flights) Regulations 2005, SI 274 of 2005, made by the Minister for Transport on 31 May 2005. However, after making the statutory instrument in consultation with the CAR and the Attorney General's office, it emerged that there may be a doubt as to whether the CAR's levy, provided for in the Aviation Regulation Act 2001, could provide for expenses incurred by the commission in enforcing the denied boarding regulation. The Department, the commission and the Attorney General's office concluded that formally restating in the legislation that established the commission that it was formally responsible for the enforcement of the regulation would clarify beyond doubt that the CAR's levy included any expenses incurred in enforcing the regulation. Furthermore, since the statutory instrument was made under the European Communities Act, it is allowed only for summary convictions and associated penalties for infringements of the legislation. The CAR and the Department have come to the view that we should take the opportunity to recast the commission's enforcement role in the primary legislation by amending the 2001 Act. This will allow it to pursue prosecutions on indictment in the event of serious breaches of the legislation.
The amendment inserts a new section into the Aviation Regulation Act 2001 to provide for a sanctions regime for the commission in order that it can enforce the denied boarding regulation. If airlines do not comply with the regulation, the CAR can issue directions to them instructing them to comply. Non-compliance with such a direction is deemed to be either a summary or an indictable offence which can be pursued. The CAR can take summary prosecutions, while the Director of Public Prosecutions can pursue indictable offences if the CAR refers serious matters to him. The amendment also revokes the European Communities (Compensation and Assistance to Air Passengers)(Denied Boarding, Cancellation or Long Delay of Flights) Regulations 2005, SI No. 274 of 2005. Since the effect of the other amendments to the Aviation Regulation Act 2001 is to provide for all of the issues dealt with in the statutory instrument, it will be redundant on the enactment of this legislation.
I wish to refer to the other aspect of the amendment, namely, CAR appeals. The amendment includes technical amendments to sections 13 and 40 of the Aviation Regulation Act 2001 relating to the consideration of appeals of airport charges and aviation terminal charges determinations by the CAR. Under the Aviation Regulation Act 2001, as amended by the State Airports Act 2004, the Dublin Airport Authority, airlines and other users at Dublin Airport may lodge appeals with the Minister against the CAR determinations. A similar right of appeal applies to determinations relating to aviation terminal service charges levied by the Irish Aviation Authority. The amendments to section 40 of the Act will extend the maximum time available to the appeal panel established by the Minister under the section to consider an appeal from two months to three. They will also extend the time available to the CAR to consider any matter referred back to it by the appeal panel from one month to two. The purpose of these changes is to ensure the parties involved have sufficient time to give due consideration to an appeal and cater for the varying complexity of possible appeals.
There is a related amendment to section 13 of the Aviation Regulation Act 2001. Currently, section 13 allows for the appointment of a member of staff of the CAR as deputy commissioner to carry out the functions of the commission when the membership of the commission is vacant, including any referral that may be made to the CAR by the appeal panel.
The amendments to sections 13 and 40 in combination provide that where an appeal panel makes a referral to the commission and the post of commissioner is vacant, the decision on the referral will be deferred, pending the appointment of the new commissioner, for a period of six months. In circumstances where the appointment of a new commissioner is pending, it is considered that having regard to the importance of the appeals process, it is only appropriate that an incoming commissioner should be given the opportunity to consider matters under appeal. The purpose of the six months limit is to cater for circumstances in which unforeseen delays arise in the appointment of a new commissioner. An indefinite deferral of a decision would not be in the interest of effective regulation. The post of commissioner is vacant following the departure of Bill Prasifka on 1 December 2005. The Public Appointments Service is responsible for holding a competition for a new commissioner. It is making arrangements for the selection of a commissioner to be appointed by the Minister as soon as possible.
I will not oppose any of these measures. Aer Lingus shareholders and notional shareholders have an expectation. The legislation is timely, given the possible sale of Aer Lingus, which many oppose. However, those who support it support it on the basis that there will be a shareholding for them. If they discovered that this was to be challenged or that the shareholding was not available, this would be catastrophic. Therefore, I will not oppose the measure. However, it reflects sloppy legislation. When one mistake is made, it is compounded. Is the Government not in a lucky position to be able to come back and state it deems this legislation to have been passed a long time ago? This is not the acceptable way to legislate. However, I accept that these things happen. The situation must be rectified.
On the other two amendments, the European regulations to do with denied boarding, cancellations and long flight delays are only signed a few months, yet we are now back trying to underpin them with legislation. This shows that due care and attention are not given to the legislative process.
I was impressed on my first reading of the proposal to extend the timeframe to deal with an appeal. I thought it was generous until I realised one was not giving people a longer period in which to appeal but providing a longer period in which to deal with it. I understand we are between commissioners and this is a circumstance that was not legislated for. Generally, the three amendments highlight a failure of the legislative process.
I concur with the points made by Deputy Mitchell. As a shadow spokesperson, I find it difficult to deal with some of the legislation coming from the Department. This is a weak area in the Department and amendments tend to be circulated late. These three measures seem to have been picked up as an afterthought and point to a weakness in the Department that needs attention.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 7, before section 4, to insert the following new section:
"4.—(1) The Aviation Regulation Act 2001 is amended—
(a) in section 2(1), by inserting after the definition of “organiser” the following:
"‘Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004' means Council Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004, establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights;",
(b) in section 8, by inserting after subsection (3) the following:
"(4) The Commission is designated for the purposes of Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004.",
(c) in section 13, by inserting “, except in accordance with section 40(8B),” after “functions of the Commission”,
(d) in section 40—
(i) in subsection (5), by substituting "3 months" for "2 months", and
(ii) in subsection (8), by substituting "2 months" for "one month", and
(iii) by inserting after subsection (8) the following:
"(8A) Where a referral is made under subsection (5), whether before or after the passing of theAviation Act 2006, and there is no person holding office as a commissioner, then a decision under subsection (8) may only be made (other than a decision made before the passing of that Act) within the period referred to in that subsection—
(a) where a commissioner is appointed within the period of 6 months of the referral, by the commissioner from the time he or she is appointed, or
(b) where a commissioner is not appointed within the period referred to in paragraph (a), from the end of that period by the deputy commissioner, unless a commissioner is appointed.
(8B) A decision under subsection (8) shall only be made by a commissioner, other than in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (8A)(b) where no commissioner has been appointed.”,
and
(e) in section 41(1), by substituting for paragraph (e) the following:
"(e) in any case where the Commission considers that the immediate giving of the notice is required, by sending it by means of electronic mail or a facsimile machine, to a device or facility for the reception of electronic mail or facsimiles located at the address at which the person ordinarily resides or carries on business or, if an address for the service of notices has been furnished by the person, that address, provided that the sender's—
(i) facility for the reception of electronic mail generates a message confirming a receipt of the electronic mail, or
(ii) facsimile machine generates a message confirming successful transmission of the total number of pages of the notice.",
(f) by inserting after section 45 the following:
"45A.—(1) Where the Commission either on its own initiative or following a complaint by a passenger is of the opinion that an operating air carrier is failing to comply with or is infringing Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004, it may issue a direction to the carrier to comply with the Regulation or cease the infringement and to comply with any instructions contained in the direction. The carrier may, within 14 days of the issue of the direction, make representations to the Commission, which the Commission shall consider. The Commission shall, where it has received such representations, reply in writing to the carrier within 2 months of such receipt. The Commission in its reply may confirm, vary or withdraw the direction. Where the direction is confirmed (with or without variation) the direction takes effect on the date the reply is given.
(2) Where a direction has been issued to an operating air carrier who—
(a) has not made representations to the Commission within the period of 14 days of the issue of the direction to the carrier, after such period, or
(b) has made such representations and the Commission has replied to the carrier confirming the direction with or without variation, after the reply is given,
fails to comply with the direction, the carrier commits an offence and is liable—
(i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €5,000, or
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €150,000.
(3) Where a direction or reply is required to be given to an operating air carrier, the direction or reply shall be addressed to the carrier and shall be given to the carrier in one of the following ways—
(a) by delivering it to the carrier,
(b) by leaving it at the address at which the carrier carries on business,
(c) by sending it by post in a pre-paid registered letter addressed to the carrier at the address at which the carrier carries on business,
(d) if an address for the service of a direction or reply has been furnished by the carrier, by leaving it at, or sending it by pre-paid registered post addressed to the carrier to, that address,
(e) by sending it by means of electronic mail or a facsimile machine, to a device or facility for the reception of electronic mail or facsimiles located at the address at which the carrier carries on business or, if an address for the service of a direction or reply has been furnished by the carrier, that address:
provided that—
(i) the sender's—
(I) facility for the reception of electronic mail generates a message confirming a receipt of the electronic mail, or
(II) facsimile machine generates a message confirming successful transmission of the total number of pages of the direction or reply,
and
(ii) the direction or reply is also given in one of the other ways mentioned in any of the preceding paragraphs.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a company registered under the Companies Acts is deemed to be ordinarily resident at its registered office, and every other body corporate and every unincorporated body is deemed to be ordinarily resident at its principal office or place of business.
(5) A copy of a direction or reply, which has endorsed on it a certificate purporting to be signed by a commissioner, the deputy commissioner or an officer of the Commission (authorised in that behalf by the Commission) stating that the copy is a true copy of the direction or reply may, without proof of signature of that person, be produced in every court and in all legal proceedings and is evidence, unless the contrary is shown, of the direction or reply.
(6) In this section—
"direction" means a direction under subsection (1);
"operating air carrier" has the meaning assigned to it in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004;
"passenger" means a passenger to whom Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 applies;
"reply" means a reply by the Commission under subsection (1).".
(2) The European Communities (Compensation and Assistance to Air Passengers) (Denied Boarding, Cancellation or Long Delay of Flights) Regulations 2005 (S.I. No. 274 of 2005) are revoked.".
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 7, line 23, after "67" to insert "(a) to (c)”.
The explanatory memorandum states paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 67 are redundant because paragraphs (d) and (e) constitute textual amendments and are, therefore, spent provisions. I do not accept this. It is not a correct statement of law. Where an Act amends an earlier Act, there is potential and scope for confusion if the Act is simply repealed on the theory that it has done its job. For legal certainty, both the original Act and an amending Act should remain in force.
The case the Deputy is making and the questions she is asking are the same as I would make and ask. However, I am just a lay person. I am advised by the professional draftperson that what we are doing is correct. Section 4 repeals section 67 of the 1993 Act on detention of aircraft. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 67 relate to the transfer of powers from the Minister to the Irish Aviation Authority as set out in section 32 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1988. As section 32 was repealed by the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998, these paragraphs are already redundant. Paragraphs (d) and (e) of section 67 of the Irish Aviation Authority Act 1993 comprise textual amendments to section 41 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1988 which also relates to the transfer of powers from the Minister to the Irish Aviation Authority. I am advised that paragraphs (d) and (e) are termed “spent provisions” and that the repeal of the entirety of section 67 of the Act of 1993 does not affect the status of section 41 of the 1988 Act, as amended by section 67. The point made by the Deputy is fully understood by the lay person but in legal terms I am told the Deputy’s intention is covered and that it is not necessary to insert the proposed amendment.
My advice is that my intention is not covered. I will re-examine the amendment and may reintroduce it on Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 7, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5.—This Act may be cited as the Aviation Act 2006.".
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 7, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5.—Part V of the Act of 1998 is amended by deleting section 40(13) and substituting the following:
"(13) (a) Nothing in this section shall—
(i) permit the detention or sale of any aircraft that is not owned by the operator who is liable for the charge, or
(ii) prejudice any right of a Company to recover any charges, or any part thereof, by action.
(b) Any sale ordered under this section shall be on such terms as to preserve the priority and interests of any third parties with an interest in the aircraft or any part of it (including equipment, stores and documents) at the time the aircraft was detained.”.”.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 7, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5.—Ireland's ratification of the Protocol of 1997 is subject to a reservation in relation to Articles 5, 6 and 9 of Annex IV ("Provisions Relating to the Common Route Charges System") in that Ireland declares that the provisions for the lien or the joint and several liability (under Article 5) and the detention and sale of aircraft (including equipment, spare parts, fuel, stores and documents) other than those legally and beneficially owned by the operator that is liable for the charge (under Articles 6 and 9) shall not apply.".
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 80, after line 30, to insert the following new Schedule:
"SCHEDULE 2
FINAL ACT
OF THE DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE ON THE PROTOCOL ON THE
ACCESSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY TO THE
EUROCONTROL INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION RELATING TO
CO-OPERATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION OF 13
DECEMBER 1960, AS VARIOUSLY AMENDED AND AS
CONSOLIDATED BY THE PROTOCOL OF 27 JUNE 1997
(Brussels, 8 October 2002)
THE PLENIPOTENTIARIES OF
THE REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA,
THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,
THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA,
THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM,
THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA,
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS,
THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA,
THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK,
THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN,
THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND,
THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND,
THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC,
THE REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY,
IRELAND,
THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC,
THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA,
THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG,
THE REPUBLIC OF MALTA,
THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA,
THE PRINCIPALITY OF MONACO,
THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY,
THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS,
THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC,
ROMANIA,
THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC,
THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA,
THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN,
THE SWISS CONFEDERATION,
THE CZECH REPUBLIC,
THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY,
AND
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY,
Assembled at Brussels on 8 October 2002;
1.Have unanimously adopted the text of a Protocol set out in Annex to the present Final Act and hereinafter called “the Accession Protocol”, on the accession of the European Community to the EUROCONTROL International Convention relating to Co-operation for the Safety of Air Navigation of 13 December 1960, as variously amended, and as consolidated by the Protocol opened for signature on 27 June 1997, hereinafter called “the revised Convention”. The said Accession Protocol has been opened for signature at Brussels on 8 October 2002.
2.Have adopted the following resolutions regarding respectively the ratification, acceptance or approval by the Contracting Parties at their earliest convenience of the Accession Protocol and the early implementation of the Accession Protocol;
The Conference:
Assembled at Brussels on 8 October 2002;
Having unanimously adopted the Protocol, hereinafter called "the Accession Protocol", on the accession of the EuropeanCommunity to the EUROCONTROL International Convention relating to Co-operation for the Safety of Air Navigation of 13 December 1960, as variously amended, and as consolidated by the Protocol opened for signature on 27 June 1997, hereinafter called "the revised Convention";
I. Resolution urging Contracting Parties to ratify, accept or approve the Accession Protocol at their earliest convenience
Considering that the accession of the European Community will significantly contribute to the aims and tasks of EUROCONTROL on the terms and conditions contained in the Accession Protocol;
Recalling the resolution adopted by the Diplomatic Conference of 27 June 1997 on the Protocol consolidating the EUROCONTROL Convention urging the Contracting Parties to the EUROCONTROL Convention to ratify the above-mentioned Protocol of 27 June 1997 at their earliest convenience;
Agreeing on the importance of an entry into force of the revised Convention and of the Accession Protocol as soon as possible;
Urges the signatories to the Accession Protocol to ratify, accept or approve that Protocol as soon as possible.
Requests the Director General of EUROCONTROL to take all practical measures, in co-operation with the signatory States and the European Community, to provide assistance, if requested, in the process of ratification, acceptance or approval of the Accession Protocol.
II. Resolution on early implementation of the Accession Protocol
Having noted the Resolution on early implementation of the Consolidating Protocol adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on the adoption of that Protocol on 27 June 1997;
Considering the importance of a smooth and efficient implementation of the Accession Protocol;
Urges all States and the European Community to develop, to the fullest extent possible, arrangements for the early implementation of certain provisions of the Accession Protocol.
3.Have adopted the following joint declarations on the absence of Community competence in the fields of national security and defence and on RTDE co-ordination:
I. Joint declaration on the absence of Community competence in the fields of national security and defence
The signatories to the Protocol on the accession of the European Community to the EUROCONTROL International Convention relating to Co-operation for the Safety of Air Navigation of 13 December 1960, as variously amended, and as consolidated by the Protocol opened for signature on 27 June 1997, hereinafter called "the revised Convention",
Having noted that the European Community has at present no competence with regard to defence and security policies;
Taking note of the role of EUROCONTROL as contained in the provisions of the revised Convention relating to military issues;
Agree that:
If the competence of the European Community were to be extended to those matters there would be a need to review whether this radically transforms the extent of their obligations under the revised Convention and whether therefore the Protocol in its present form can be applied to those matters.
II. Joint declaration on RTDE co-ordination
The signatories to the Protocol on the accession of the European Community to the EUROCONTROL International Convention relating to Co-operation for the Safety of Air Navigation of 13 December 1960, as variously amended, and as consolidated by the Protocol opened for signature on 27 June 1997, hereinafter called "the revised Convention",
Having examined the provisions of the revised Convention relating to the coordination of research, technological development and evaluation (RTDE) activities in the fields covered by that Convention;
Having noted that Article 2.1.(h) of the revised Convention is applicable to the co-ordination of RTDE activities between EUROCONTROL and its Contracting Parties;
Having noted that the co-ordination organised by the EUROCONTROL Agency under Article 1.5 (i) of its Statute concerns its own RTDE activities and those of ATM Organisations;
Agree that:
—the "co-ordination of RTDE activities" is the exchange of views, information and experience about RTDE programmes and activities in the area of air traffic management; its main objectives are to promote complementarity and to avoid duplication of work;
—in co-ordinating their RTDE activities, all parties involved shall respect the overall objectives, competencies, administrative, managerial and budgetary responsibilities and the procedures of their respective institutions or bodies entrusted with the execution of RTDE programmes, as well as their rules governing participation, dissemination and intellectual property rights;
—the Contracting Parties shall remain free to decide on their RTDE strategies, programmes and projects in accordance with their own internal procedures.
4.Have noted the following joint declaration by the States signatories to the Consolidating Protocol and this Final Act:
III. Joint declaration regarding the entry into force of the Consolidating Protocol and the Accession Protocol, and regarding further signatures to the Accession Protocol
The States signatories to the Protocol consolidating the EUROCONTROL International Convention relating to Co-operation for the Safety of Air Navigation of 13 December 1960, as variously amended, opened for signature on 27 June 1997, hereinafter called "the Consolidating Protocol", and signatories to the Final Act of the Diplomatic Conference on the Protocol on the accession of the European Community to the EUROCONTROL Convention, opened for signature on 8 October 2002, hereinafter called "the Accession Protocol";
Desirous to clarify the conditions regarding the entry into force of the consolidating Protocol and the Accession Protocol;
Confirm their interpretation of Article II, paragraph 3, of the Consolidating Protocol to the effect that the aforesaid Protocol shall enter into force when all States that are parties to the EUROCONTROL Convention on 8 October 2002, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval of the Consolidating Protocol.
Agree that EUROCONTROL shall take the appropriate steps to ensure, when considering a request for accession to the EUROCONTROL Convention and for an authorisation to sign the Consolidating Protocol, that adequate commitments are made for signature and for ratification, acceptance or approval, of the Accession Protocol.
PROTOCOL
ON THE ACCESSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY TO THE
EUROCONTROL INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION RELATING TO
CO-OPERATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION OF 13
DECEMBER 1960, AS VARIOUSLY AMENDED AND AS
CONSOLIDATED BY THE PROTOCOL OF 27 JUNE 1997
THE REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA,
THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,
THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA,
THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM,
THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA,
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS,
THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA,
THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK,
THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN,
THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND,
THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND,
THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC,
THE REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY,
IRELAND,
THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC,
THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA,
THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG,
THE REPUBLIC OF MALTA,
THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA,
THE PRINCIPALITY OF MONACO,
THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY,
THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS,
THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC,
ROMANIA,
THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC,
THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA,
THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN,
THE SWISS CONFEDERATION,
THE CZECH REPUBLIC,
THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY,
AND
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY,
Having regard to the EUROCONTROL International Convention relating to Cooperation for the Safety of Air Navigation of 13 December 1960, as amended by the Additional Protocol of 6 July 1970, in turn amended by the Protocol of 21 November 1978, all amended by the Protocol of 12 February 1981, and as amended and consolidated by the Protocol of 27 June 1997, hereinafter referred to as "the Convention", and in particular Article 40 thereof;
Having regard to the responsibilities granted by the Treaty establishing the European Community of 25 March 1957, as revised by the Amsterdam Treaty of 2 October 1997, to the European Community in certain areas covered by the Convention;
Whereas the European Community Member States, Members of EUROCONTROL, when adopting the Protocol consolidating the Convention which was opened for signature on 27 June 1997, declared that their signature was without prejudice to the Community's exclusive competence in certain areas covered by that Convention and to the Community's membership of
EUROCONTROL for the purpose of exercising such exclusive competence;
Whereas the purpose of the accession of the European Community to the Convention is to assist the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, hereinafter referred to as "EUROCONTROL", in achieving its objectives as set out in the Convention, notably that of being a single and efficient body for Air Traffic Management policy-making in Europe;
Whereas the European Community's accession to EUROCONTROL requires clarification of the way in which the provisions of the Convention will apply to the European Community and its Member States;
Whereas the terms and conditions of the accession of the European Community to the Convention shall enable the Community to exercise within EUROCONTROL such competencies that have been transferred to it from its Member States;
Whereas arrangements for greater co-operation over the use of Gibraltar airport were agreed in London on 2 December 1987 by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom in a joint declaration by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two countries, and such arrangements have yet to come into operation;
HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The European Community, within the framework of its competence, accedes to the Convention on the terms and conditions laid down in this Protocol, in accordance with Article 40 of the Convention.
Article 2
For the European Community, within the framework of its competence, the Convention shall apply to en-route air navigation services and related approach and aerodrome services for air traffic in the Flight Information Regions of its Member States listed in Annex II to the Convention, which are within the limits of the territorial applicability of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
The application of this Protocol to the airport of Gibraltar is understood to be without prejudice to the respective legal positions of the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom with regard to the dispute over sovereignty over the territory in which the airport is situated.
Application of this Protocol to Gibraltar airport shall be suspended until the arrangements in the Joint Declaration made by the Foreign Ministers of the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom on 2 December 1987 have come into operation. The Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom will inform the other Contracting Parties to this Protocol of such date of entry into operation.
Article 3
Subject to the provisions of this Protocol, provisions in the Convention shall be so interpreted as to also include the European Community within the framework of Community competence, and the various terms used to designate the Contracting Parties to the Convention and their representatives are to be understood accordingly.
Article 4
The European Community will not contribute to the budget of EUROCONTROL.
Article 5
Without prejudice to the exercise of its voting rights under Article 6, the European Community shall be entitled to be represented and involved in the work of all bodies of EUROCONTROL in which any of its Member States is entitled to be represented as a Contracting Party, and where matters falling within its competence may be dealt with, with the exception of bodies which have an audit function.
In all bodies of EUROCONTROL where it may participate, the European Community will present its positions, within the framework of its competence, in accordance with its institutional rules.
The European Community may not submit candidates for membership of elected EUROCONTROL bodies, nor may it submit candidates for office on the bodies in which it is entitled to participate.
Article 6
1. For decisions in matters where the European Community has exclusive competence and for the purpose of the application of the rules provided for in Article 8 of the Convention, the European Community shall exercise the voting rights of its Member States under the Convention, and the votes and weighted votes so cast by the European Community shall be cumulated for the determination of the majorities provided for in the said Article 8 of the Convention. When the Community votes, its Member States shall not vote.
For the purpose of deciding on the number of Contracting Parties to the Convention required for a request for decision-making by a three-quarters majority, as stipulated at the end of the first sub-paragraph of Article 8.2, the Community shall be considered as representing its Member States, which are Members of EUROCONTROL.
A decision proposed with respect to a specific item to be voted on by the European Community shall be postponed if a Contracting Party to the Convention that is not a member of the European Community so requests. The postponement shall be used for consultations between the Contracting Parties to the Convention, assisted by the EUROCONTROL Agency, on the decision proposed. In the event of such a request, the taking of the decision may be postponed for a maximum period of six months.
2. For decisions in matters where the European Community has no exclusive competence, Member States of the European Community shall vote in accordance with their voting rights as provided for in Article 8 of the Convention, and the European Community shall not vote.
3. The European Community shall inform on a case-by-case basis the other Contracting Parties to the Convention of the cases where, with regard to the various items of the agendas of the General Assembly, the Council and other deliberating bodies to which the General Assembly and the Council have delegated powers, it will exercise the voting rights provided for in paragraph 1 above. This obligation shall also apply when decisions are taken by correspondence.
Article 7
The scope of the competence transferred to the Community is indicated in general terms in a written declaration made by the European Community at the time of the signature of this Protocol.
This declaration may be modified as appropriate by notification from the European Community to EUROCONTROL. It does not replace or in any way limit the matters that may be covered by the notifications of Community competence to be made prior to EUROCONTROL decision-making by means of formal voting or otherwise.
Article 8
Article 34 of the Convention shall apply to any dispute arising between two or more Contracting Parties to this Protocol or between one or more Contracting Parties to this Protocol and EUROCONTROL relating to the interpretation, application or performance of this Protocol, including its existence, validity and termination.
Article 9
1. This Protocol shall be opened for signature by all States signatories to the Protocol consolidating the EUROCONTROL International Convention relating to Co-operation for the Safety of Air Navigation of 13 December 1960, as variously amended, opened for signature on 27 June 1997, hereinafter referred to as "the Consolidating Protocol", and the European Community.
It shall also be open, prior to the date of its entry into force, for signature by any State, duly authorised to sign the Consolidating Protocol, in accordance with Article II of that Protocol.
2. This Protocol shall be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval. The instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium.
3. This Protocol shall enter into force when it has been ratified, accepted or approved, on the one hand, by all signatory States that are also signatories to the Consolidating Protocol and whose ratification, acceptance or approval is required for the entry into force of the Consolidating Protocol, and on the other hand, by the European Community, on the first day of the second month after the deposit of the last instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval, provided that the Consolidating Protocol has come into force on that date. Where this condition is not met, it shall enter into force on the same date as the Consolidating Protocol.
4. This Protocol shall enter into force with respect to such signatories that have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval after its entry into force on the first day of the second month following the deposit of the relevant instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval.
5. The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium shall notify the Governments of the other signatory States of this Protocol and the European Community of each signature, each deposit of an instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval and each date of entry into force of this Protocol pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 above.
Article 10
Each accession to the Convention after its entry into force shall represent also consent to be bound by this Protocol. The provisions of Articles 39 and 40 of the Convention shall also apply to this Protocol.
Article 11
1. This Protocol shall remain in force for an indefinite period.
2. If all EUROCONTROL Member States which are Members of the European Community withdraw from EUROCONTROL, notification of withdrawal from the Convention, as well as from this Protocol, shall be considered to have been given by the European Community together with the notification of withdrawal under Article 38.2 of the Convention of the last Member State of the European Community withdrawing from EUROCONTROL.
Article 12
The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium shall have this Protocol registered with the Secretary-General of the United Nations pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization pursuant to Article 83 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944.".
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 3, line 12, after "1993" to insert the following:
", TO AMEND THE AVIATION REGULATION ACT 2001, TO AMEND THE AER LINGUS ACT 2004".
