I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the proposed agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United States of America relating to the preinspection in the State of persons travelling by air to the United States of America, copies whereof were laid before Dáil Éireann on 5 June 1986.
The copies of the draft agreement now laid before Dáil Eireann contain one minor alteration compared to the copies of the draft previously laid before the Dáil and scheduled to the Air Navigation and Transport (Preinspection) Bill, 1986. In subsection (5) of Article VII the word "passenger" is replaced by the word "person". This is a minor drafting amendment which has been agreed with the US Authorities. In so far as the draft agreement scheduled to the Bill is concerned, I will be moving the necessary amendment on the Committee Stage. The debate on this motion is being taken in conjunction with the Second Stage of the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide a legislative framework for the establishment of US immigration and public health preinspection facilities at Shannon Airport in accordance with an agreement proposed to be made between the Irish and US Governments. The proposed agreement has been laid before the House and is scheduled to the Bill. It will be formally signed following the enactment of the legislation. The urgency in dealing with the legislation arises from the need to have a legal framework in place so as to permit the establishment of the preinspection facility, on a trial basis, with effect from 1 July 1986.
For some years past, arising from an Aer Rianta initiative aimed at increasing traffic through Shannon Airport, the question of establishing US customs, immigration, and public health preclearance at Shannon has been discussed from time to time with the US authorities. The US already have such arrangements with Canada, the Bahamas and Bermuda. In the early stages of the discussions, a full preclearance arrangement was considered, but it was not proceeded with because of Aer Lingus concern about the delays which would arise for the company's services to the US due to the necessity to off-load baggage at Shannon in order to process it though customs. In any event, the US customs authorities themselves did not appear to be very enthusiastic about the proposal, so interest in customs preclearance at Shannon tended to recede somewhat.
Last year I decided to pursue the matter further with the US authorities and at a meeting with the US Secretary for Transportation, Mrs. Elizabeth Dole, in Washington last October, I raised the preclearance question again. Our meeting turned out to be very productive and, following discussions between officials of our two administrations, the text of a draft agreement was finalised on a more limited preinspection arrangement. Under the proposed agreement officers of the United States Immigration and Naturalisation Service would conduct in Ireland, at Shannon in the first instance, inspection of passengers and aircraft crew required by United States immigration and public health laws and regulations for entry into the United States. Customs clearance would be carried out in the normal way on arrival in the United States.
As Deputies are no doubt aware, airlines operating long-distance routes between parts of the US and Europe, or operating with certain types of aircraft, have to make a technical stop for refuelling purposes at an intermediate airport and Aer Rianta over the years have marketed Shannon as a suitable transit stop. The principal benefit to Ireland of preinspection is that Aer Rianta will be able to market it as another reason why airlines should operate through Shannon, thus generating additional traffic movements at the airport.
In the light of the possibility of avoiding what are often lengthy delays at immigration on arrival in the US, preinspection at Shannon would mostly benefit business people and passengers holding other than US passports. Aer Rianta believe that preinspection should be of particular interest to airlines operating between Europe and the US with significant numbers of non-US citizens on board. Indeed, I see no reason why it should not also be of interest to airlines operating schedules services between the US and Ireland, particularly those which turn around at Shannon.
To test the value of preinspection to Shannon Airport, agreement has been reached on an initial trial period of four months, commencing 1 July, after which the results of the trial will be evaluated by both countries and a decision taken as to whether preinspection should be established on a permanent basis.
Initial estimates were that preinspection could result in 100 extra landings at Shannon during the four month trial period, generating significant net additional revenue for Aer Rianta from aircraft landing fees, inflight catering, sales of fuel and sales in the duty free shop. Aer Rianta estimate that the additional revenue generated would more than compensate for the "once off" cost to Aer Rianta of providing the physical facilities required at Shannon for the preinspection facility.
Recent developments with regard to international terrorism have affected the Aer Rianta projections somewhat, as it is now generally accepted that fewer US visitors will come to Europe this summer. However, this new situation makes it all the more necessary for us to take all possible measures to maximise the attraction of this country and its airport facilities to airlines flying between the US and Europe. The Government have decided, therefore, to press ahead with the proposals for preinspection at Shannon. I have been assured by Aer Rianta that, on the basis of commitments already received from a number of airlines, the preinspection scheme will still be well worthwhile.
Under a permanent arrangement, the additional cost to the US Government of providing preinspection at Shannon compared with the cost of inspection on arrival in the US would fall on Aer Rianta. However, in accordance with the terms of the proposed agreement and normal practice in the US preclearance arrangements with other countries, these costs could be recouped by Aer Rianta from the participating airlines. In the course of the negotiations, however, the US side accepted a suggestion from the Irish delegation that the United States Immigration and Naturalisation Service should bear the costs of posting INS officers at Shannon during the trial period and that the cost of the required physical facilities at Shannon would be borne by Aer Rianta. This should make participation in the trial period more attractive to airlines.
I should mention that Aer Lingus, who have expressed concern lest preinspection might cause delays at Shannon to their services to the US, nevertheless propose to avail of the trial period to put some of their flights through preinspection. I was glad to hear of this because my Department have been assured both by Aer Rianta and the US authorities that sufficient resources will be made available to ensure that delays will not occur.
The Bill before the House is intended to give legal effect to the terms of the proposed agreement with the US. There are two aspects of the Bill and the draft agreement to which I think I should draw particular attention. They relate to the questions of national sovereignty and law enforcement.
The exercise by a sovereign power of jurisdiction on Irish soil is obviously a matter of concern in principle and in practice. Deputies will note that paragraph (1) of Article I of the draft agreement defines preinspection as the procedure whereby the INS conduct in Ireland inspection of passengers and aircraft crew required by US immigration and public health laws and regulations for entry into the US, while Article V links the powers of INS officials with the same laws and regulations, The provisions of the draft agreement which could be held to touch on Ireland's sovereignty, for example, Article IX which deals, inter alia, with the question of immunity for US citizens assigned to INS duties in Ireland, Article V which deals with the powers of INS officers, and Article VI, paragraph (4) which deals with law enforcement, have been drafted as restrictively and tightly as possible.
Section 5 of the Bill specifies the preinspection duties which INS officials will be authorised to carry out in the State while Section 6 provides for immunity from civil and criminal prosecution for such officials while carrying out those duties. Section 6 also provides for protection of the facilities used by the INS officials and for the grant to the INS officials of such privileges as may be agreed between the two Governments. The immunities are strictly limited to acts performed in the course of duties at the preinspection facility, which have been carefully defined in the Bill and in the draft agreement. It should also be noted that provision is made in section 6 (3) of the Bill, as in the draft agreement, whereby the immunities granted may be waived by the US Government.
The provision made in section 6 (5) of the Bill reflects the undertaking contained in Article IX (4) of the draft agreement regarding privileges to be accorded in the future to the relevant US officials. Deputies will note that the question of the privileges to be enjoyed by the US officials concerned will have to be the subject of further consultations and agreement between the two Governments. It is envisaged that these privileges will relate principally to the areas of income tax and customs examination on transfer of residence.
I would also point out that the text of the draft agreement, by imposing obligations on the US authorities to consult with and/or to seek the agreement of the Irish authorities in relation to a number of important operational aspects of preinspection, provides an important element of control by the Irish authorities. For example, Article VI (2) provides that the preinspection facilities to be provided must be the subject of agreement between the competent authorities of both countries; Article VI (3) requires the agreement of the competent Irish authority to any communications and inspection aids and equipment required by the INS for preinspection purposes; Article VII (1) provides for Irish control over the number of INS officials to be assigned to preinspection duties; Article VII (3) imposes an obligation on the US authorities to consult with the competent Irish authority on matters relating to the implementation of the agreement; while Article VII (5) provides that the INS shall immediately inform the Irish Immigration Service of any refusal of passage onwards to the US and supply the latter with all data relevant to that decision.
Furthermore, the US authorities have accepted, and it is written into the draft agreement and into section 5 of the Bill, that any search of passengers by INS officials would have to be on a voluntary basis. We regarded this as a very important point of principle.
Section 7 of the Bill is concerned with aliens control. At present, for the purposes of aliens control, persons who are in transit at Shannon Airport are not regarded as having arrived in the State. Similarly, under section 7 of the Bill, persons flying into Shannon, who are cleared for passage onwards to the US by the INS and then continue their journey to the US, will not be regarded as having arrived in the State.
Where, however, a person is refused passage onwards by the INS, it is necessary that that person should be deemed to have arrived in the State and should, therefore, have to present himself or herself to an Irish immigration officer for permission to land. This will be necessary because there may not be an early return flight to the person's point of embarkation or place or origin. Persons refused passage onwards will be given or refused permission to land in the State having regard to their individual cases, to the Aliens Act and orders made under that Act.
In the case of persons refused permission to land in the State, it may be necessary in some cases to keep them in detention pending suitable flights out of the State. It is not envisaged that the number of people refused passage onwards will be large or that their numbers should pose any problem for our immigration officers. Accordingly, no extra staff will be needed to deal with this category of person. As I have indicated already, the INS will be required to provide information to our immigration officers about persons refused passage onwards. Such information would be of use to our immigration officers in the event of such persons seeking permission to land in Ireland. This arrangement will not result in any expense to the Irish taxpayer as the draft agreement provides that the air carrier will be responsible for all expenses and arrangements in connection with return to the point of embarkation or country of origin of persons refused passage onwards by the INS.
It is important to note that, under the terms of the draft agreement, law enforcement at the proposed preinspection facility will remain in Irish hands. Under Article VI (4) of the draft agreement, the Irish Government undertake to provide appropriate law enforcement assistance to prevent persons refused passage onwards from boarding a preinspected flight. Such assistance would be confined to cases where there was a threat of a breach of the peace or, for instance, where there was a threat of an assault or where an actual assault had taken place. That type of situation can arise at present at any of our airports. A passenger may not, for example, have the necessary documentation and, for that reason, may be refused permission to board a flight leaving the State. Normally, such persons accept the decision of the air carrier staff but occasionally it can happen that they create a scene or remonstrate about the decision.
Therefore, what is envisaged in the draft agreement in relation to law enforcement is not new, in the sense that similar situations can occur at our airports at present and, on occasion, they have to be dealt with by authorised officers, that is, the Airport police or the Garda Síochána. Indeed, boarding or attempting to board an aircraft by an unauthorised person is already a prohibited act under Article 4 of the Airport Bye-Laws 1978.
Section 8 of the Bill provides for increased penalties for offences such as obstructing, impeding or assaulting authorised officers or for refusing or failing to leave a State airport when required to do so by an authorised officer. The existing penalties were laid down by the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1950, and are very much out of date.
As with the immigration service, it is envisaged that the extra work on law enforcement will not necessiatate any extra staff to deal with matters arising from the preinspection operation at Shannon. Incidents necessitating law enforcement assistance, which are expected to be few in number, will be dealt with as part of the normal workload of the law enforcement officers concerned.
In view of certain comments made recently outside the House, I should like to make one point absolutely clear. INS officers assigned to Shannon Airport will not be armed and it was never intended that they should be.
Over the years, Shannon Airport has had its ups and downs. The introduction of jet aircraft on trans-Atlantic routes in the late fifties, obviating the need for refuelling stops, threatened the viability of the airport. This was the stimulus for the establishment of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company who were given responsibility for developing traffic through the airport and for encouraging industrial development in the immediate vicinity of the airport and I think it right that I should acknowledge on this occasion the significant contribution made over the years by the development company in attracting terminal traffic to Shannon Airport.
The efforts of Shannon Development were built on by Aer Rianta from 1969 onwards, when they took over the management of the airport and, or later on, the catering and duty free shops. The success of the Aeroflot refuelling facility, the marketing of Shannon as a technical stopping point and expansion of mail order and duty free sales have all made substantial contributions to the wellbeing of the airport. The board, management and staff of Aer Rianta deserve to be complimented for their efforts, which have largely been responsible for the turnaround in the financial performance at Shannon in recent years. By contrast with a series of losses in the years 1979-82, which reached a peak of £1.6 million in 1980, results at Shannon in recent years have been much improved, with surpluses of £3.3 million and £3.6 million respectively in 1984 and 1985. Although in view of the expected downturn in the number of US visitors to Europe this summer, it would be too optimistic to expect the results at Shannon this year to match those of recent years, the proposed new preinspection facility should provide some measure of compensation by attracting new traffic to the airport.
I commend the Bill to the House.
