Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

"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.".

There has been considerable debate on this aspect of the Bill and its shortcomings in the Seanad and on Committee Stage. I hope that as the Minister of State has now had an opportunity to reconsider his position, he might agree to the amendments tabled by Deputy Olivia Mitchell and me.

Many concerns were expressed regarding this Bill by aircraft leasing companies and aircraft maintenance and repair organisations because it will make it easier for Eurocontrol to take action against the customers of both types of company. The Bill puts Ireland at a competitive disadvantage by allowing Eurocontrol to go further here than in any other country in terms of providing it with powers to seize and dispose of aircraft. As Eurocontrol is already very successful in collecting unpaid fees, why should such additional powers be provided in Ireland? On Committee Stage, the Minister of State made the point that it would act as a deterrent. However, the existing powers already do so and there is nothing to indicate that any further deterrents are required or would be provided by the provisions of this Bill.

Under these proposals and given the international nature of the industry, Irish aircraft owners could find themselves being sued before a foreign court. Any statements made by the Minister of State in the House or on Committee Stage would be of no value because what matters is not how the Minister of State may wish the Bill to be construed but how it is actually construed. It seems extraordinary that no cognisance will be taken of the rights of aircraft maintenance companies and aircraft leasing companies in respect of the principles regarding private property.

On Committee Stage, I remarked that the provisions of this Bill are akin to giving the ESB the power to seize the house of a landlord whose tenant has not paid his or her ESB bill. It is exactly the same as that scenario. This constitutes interference with the private property rights of owners of aircraft, or in my example, landlords, because people with whom they do business have defaulted on paying a bill. This is what the Minister of State proposes.

In natural justice, I cannot see how such proposals stand up. Undoubtedly, if the Minister of State proceeds along these lines, the legislation will be challenged in the courts. I hope he has had time to reconsider this matter, that sense will prevail in this regard and that he will accept these amendments.

See this speech in context