Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)

On first reading there appears to be nothing wrong with this Bill. In fact, the Minister's officials are to be commended. They identified a problem, acted on it by formulating a strategy and legislation was prepared. The Government took up the baton and the Bill before us is the result. If other aspects of air transport were executed as efficiently we would have a second terminal at Dublin Airport, with the building of a third having commenced. We would have a long-term strategy, perhaps even an all-Ireland one, for the development of other airports and the long-term future of Aer Lingus would be secure. We can but dream that this is a new beginning for Government.

On reading the Bill a second time a number of crucial questions arise. There is an important principle in the Bill, namely, that when the chips are down and the private sector is running for the hills, the Government comes to the rescue. It is interesting that the Government's "sell it quickly to anyone" privatisation agenda is missing from this Bill. In bringing forward this Bill it is conceding an important point, that is, that the Government has a role to play in the economy and that it is the backstop when the private sector bolts.

This Bill should dictate terms to the insurance business and companies which receive the indemnities. For example, the Bill allows for charges to be levied for the proposed indemnities. That is essential. If Ryanair can charge the weakest in society for a wheelchair, we can charge it and other airlines for insurance cover.

Section 5 outlines the reasons for not issuing an indemnity. Why not add a clause allowing the Minister to refuse an indemnity to carriers and other companies which are either in dispute with their workers or refuse to recognise their unions or participate fully in the State's industrial relations machinery? I ask the Minister to examine that possibility.

In terms of setting down markers, why is the insurance industry being allowed to walk away from this risk? Is this the beginning of cherry-picking in that they decide the risks they will cover, knowing that somebody else will pick up the slack and leaving the vast profits those companies make untouched?

On the question of the source of the risks, I note from the Bill that the cover is extended to all carriers, suppliers and airports in the Twenty-six Counties. Has consideration been given to the increased exposure of Shannon Airport in terms of the type of war and terrorism cover envisaged in this Bill? That is a facility with daily flights of US military personnel and detainees and it appears to be the most exposed in terms of potential risk.

What contribution of the indemnity charges will be levied on Shannon Airport because of those flights? What insurance cover is the US Government providing for the flights in and out of Shannon in terms of the potential risk to the local population and the airport staff from what the Bill describes as dirty bombs or is that paid for by the Irish Aviation Authority? Is it another case of the Irish Government paying someone else's Bills?

See this speech in context