: I move amendment No. 38:
In page 41, subsection (1) (i), line 31, after "area", to insert "of airspace".
SECTION 60.
Amendment agreed to.
: I move amendment No. 39:
In page 41, subsection (1) (i) (I), line 32, to delete "a defined" and substitute "an".
Amendment agreed to.
: I move amendment No. 40:
In page 41, subsection (1) (i) (II), line 35, to delete "a defined" and substitute "an".
Amendment agreed to.
: Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 are related.
: I move amendment No. 41:
In page 42, subsection (1) (l), line 6, to delete "and".
The purpose of these amendments is to rectify clerical errors.
Amendment agreed to.
: I move amendment No. 42:
In page 42, subsection (1) (n), line 13, after "navigation," to insert "and".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 60, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
: I would like to remark in passing that this section enables the company to make orders on a whole series of things that are in pages 40, 41 and 42 of the Bill. These are the pernicious kinds of orders I spoke about earlier on another section. Section 6 illustrates the inappropriateness of a blanket provision of this kind for the orders because if one looks at the range of things in respect of which orders may be made one will find that, to say the least of it, they are very heterogeneous. There are some things which clearly should never come before a legislature. There are matters on which, even if they were before the Dáil and the Seanad every day of the week, nobody in either House, with the exception perhaps of a few fanatics, would be able to give any direction; for example, orders for the regulation of the refuelling of aircraft. That is not a matter that should ever come before the Houses of the Oireachtas in any shape or form. What would the Oireachtas have to contribute on orders relating to the inspection and approval of premises where there is carried on the business of the storage of aircraft, parts or material including fuel for aircraft and so on?
There are other provisions which are very different. If one looks at subsection (1) (j) (i) one will find that this pernicious system of making orders will apply to orders "requiring the payment of fees in respect of the application for the grant or renewal of any certificate, licence or instrument of approval or otherwise for the purposes or an order under this section or the said Annexes and specifying their amount". That is like saying that the Minister will be empowered to make an order under the provisions of this or a similar Act that will vary the amount of road tax that we pay on our cars because these are fees that have to do with the application for the grant or renewal of various kinds of licences. Because there would be a Revenue concern in this, the Houses of the Oireachtas should be entitled to look at these things. If they are entitled to look at them, then they are entitled to do so properly.
I ask the Minister to explain why in subsection (1) (b) (x) there is provision for prohibiting or regulating the use of unlicensed aerodromes or the use of other places for the landing of aircraft. We had a long discussion on aerodromes the other day which included lakes and all kinds of fish ponds and so on. What kinds of places are to be places other than unlicensed aerodromes? Does the Minister see the possibility that people might use places other than licensed or unlicensed aerodromes for landing aircraft? What might they be, given the complete definition provided earlier in the Bill? Why does the Minister think it necessary that he should have to take powers to prohibit or to regulate the use of unlicensed aerodromes? If they are unlicensed why has the Minister any interest in them? Does this subsection mean, for example, that if I had the misfortune one day to be flying an aircraft and had to make an emergency landing in an area that is an unlicensed aerodrome in relation to which the Minister has not yet made an order prohibiting or regulating its use, I should go back up into the air until he gets around to making such a provision before I would be allowed to come back down again?
: Will the Deputy repeat that?
: We have the tradition of the belt and braces, but the Minister has belt, braces, suspenders and glue for the false teeth in this Bill because not only is he making conditions about licensed aerodromes and defining licensed aerodromes, he is making provisions in relation to the use of unlicensed aerodromes or the use of other places for the landing of aircraft. Therefore if an aircraft lands on a licensed aerodrome there is a set of rules, if it lands on an unlicensed aerodrome there may be a set of rules and if it lands on a place other than a licensed or an unlicensed aerodrome there may also be a set of rules. What are we doing with all these rules? Where are all these other places in which people are landing aircraft?
I note that subsection 1 (e) allows the company to make regulations and provisions: "as to the conditions subject to which aircraft may be used in different circumstances and for different purposes,". That could mean almost everything or almost nothing. It allows the company to make these regulations subject to this nonsensical and undemocratic legislative provision in this Bill which means that the Houses of the Oireachtas may never get a chance to do anything about it. If that means what I believe it to mean it should come before the Houses of the Oireachtas in a specific way rather than by the kind of subterfuge contained in this order.
The same kind of regulations and provision will apply under subsection (1) (f) which will make provisions: "as to the conditions subject to which aircraft may enter or leave, or operate in, the State or passengers or goods may be conveyed by aircraft into or from the State or within the State,". I would almost expect to find another provision here, namely, or in any other place apart from the State which may be prohibited, licensed, unlicensed or unprohibited. It appears to me that these are the kinds of conditions which we apply to operators of aircraft for providing services. I believe this is the kind of thing which should explicitly come before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is not something which is appropriate by means of these hidden subterfuge regulations.
In subsection 1 (1) there is provision for making orders which may apply to: "the control and regulation of lights the purpose of which is to aid air navigation, other lights at or in the neighbourhood of aerodromes and lights which are liable to endanger aircraft". This means that the company is entitled to make provisions in relation to these. The Minister probably knows to what I am referring in mentioning this because I am thinking of a particular case where an extension to a service is proposed.
One of the potential difficulties is the kind of lighting that the National Roads Authority will provide for a proposed major interchange on one of the roads around Dublin. In one place instead of having lights to light the interchange of 20 metres in height, which is the normal height used, it proposes to put lights 30 metres in height because that will give a better level of light and more safety for the users of the interchange. That is normally a matter which is left to the National Roads Authority. I gather that discussions resulted in the National Roads Authority being prepared to reduce the height of one of the lights from 30 metres to 20 metres so that the proposal fits in with the international civil aviation organsation requirments.
That is acceptable, and it appears that the matter has been discussed and agreed between the proposer, the Minister's Department and the local authority. However, when this Bill is passed it will no longer be the National Roads Authority but the company that will be able to undertake this. The company potentially will be able to decide that the National Roads Authority cannot have rights of the standard it wants on the roads, it will have to be determined by the company. In view of this what provision will the Minister make to ensure that this company is competent to decide questions such as road lighting?
It is amazing what one finds when digging into Bills like this. Mining is a very interesting occupation when dealing with something like this Bill, especially given the undemocratic instinct of our public service to take hidden powers for all kind of things. The power contained in subsection 1 (n) makes provisions: "regulating the making of signals and other communications by or to aircraft and persons carried therein, and regulating the use of any sign for purposes connected with air navigation". Regarding "communications [made] by or to aircraft and persons carried therein", does it mean that the company will in some way have powers to regulate or make provisions concerning radio equipment, the use of which could interfere with aircraft navigation?
The Minister is aware that there have been various problems over recent years with some kinds of citizen band and other types of radio interfering with communication with aircraft. Does this mean that the Bill will give this company powers to make regulations affecting the use of that kind of equipment? If so why? Does this provision give the appropriate Minister and Government Department power to get their fingers into that pie and if so do they know that? If they know are they in agreement with the provision? I would like a response from the Minister.
: I have been interested in Deputy Dukes's dissertation. I have a great interest in extractive mining and I have done some little mining into archival legislation. In the 1946 Air Navigation and Transport Act, the same conditions were included. This Bill is transferring and updating those conditions so that the new Authority will have similar responsibilities.
: Did the Minister notice them in the 1946 Act?
: I was not born then, so I do not know. However, I am sure there have been major effects since then. Regarding the powers which are being conferred, the answer would be yes to most of the questions which the Deputy has raised.
: It is kind of the Minister to say so, but to tell me that the answer in most cases is yes is not illuminating.
: If you would——
: It certainly would not fall under the provisions of subsection 1 (1). Could the Minister explain the inclusion of subsection 1 (b) (x) which states, "for prohibiting or regulating the use of unlicensed aerodromes or the use of other places for the landing of aircraft,"
: Private aircraft can be operated from private property. However, it is important to regulate the use of the areas where such aircraft may land and take off. One could have a small aircraft in Kildare and could go up and down on one's property, but it would have to be regulated. One would not have a licensed area as such. It would be an unlicensed area and there would have to be regulations pertaining to the conditions in which one could come and go, alight and return.
(Limerick East): With all the regulatory powers the Minister has under the 1946 Act, which are now being re-enacted, is the Minister aware that most of the regulations his Department has laid down in respect of helicopter pads, such as the lighting of them at night, the fact that there must be a nearby water supply and they must be clearly marked from the air and so on, are not complied with by the larger hospitals? There are night flights into hospitals and the landing pads are not in accordance with the regulations laid down. There are stacks of regulations but what happens on the ground does not reflect the regulations. I thought the Minister might be interested in that piece of irrelevance.
: I am certainly interested in that information. I am surprised that Deputy Noonan would say that the regulations pertaining to helicopter pads at hospitals are not operated to the standards and regulations laid down because I have had occasion to use them myself both in daylight and at night and I found them satisfactory.
(Limerick East): I am glad the Minister landed safely and got away safely. However if he examines the regulations in his Department in respect of fire, water supply, markings, wind socks and so on he will find that they are not being complied with.
: In most cases the use of those helipads would be for military purposes. Helicopters use them to provide a particular service to the hospitals and based on that they have certain facilities, abilities and regulations which are specific to themselves.
: Surely if a military aircraft is operating in support of civil services or under civilian control it is bound to comply with civilian requirements? The Minister's answer to Deputy Noonan is not in fact an answer.
: It is certainly an answer but it may not be to the satisfaction of the Deputy. I must examine the matter further.
: It might not be an answer to other people's satisfaction. Returning to the provisions for unlicensed aerodromes or other place for the landing of aircraft, is the Minister seriously advising that we are going to have, and have had, regulations for the use of places like the forementioned, and nobody knows or will know whether they are being applied? If I had a 20-acre field, which I do not have, and a light aircraft, which equally to my regret I do not have, is the Minister saying that I can use it on a field or other place that is not a licensed aerodrome and that although there are regulations applying to my use of it in those circumstances, nobody is going to ask whether I am obeying those regulations? Is that the case?
: Deputy Dukes might be able to get away with that once, but when it would come to the notice of the Authority or ANSO somebody would investigate, and if there were any complaints made that investigation would take place quickly. In the past we have barred the operation of private aircraft in particular places at particular times.
Question put and agreed to.
: I would like to bring the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is now 4.56 p.m. We agreed to review progress at 5 o'clock.
(Limerick East): I believe there has been a good innings. The one amendment of significance that remains in the name of Deputy Pat Rabbitte was discussed previously.
: That was ruled out of order.
(Limerick East): The substance was discussed previously on an earlier amendment in my name. If the sections are proposed formally we will agree them in the next four minutes.
: Is everyone in agreement with that procedure? Agreed.
Sections 61 to 66, inclusive, agreed to.