Hildegarde Naughton (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies. I certainly understand the intentions and the spirit of these amendments but I cannot accept amendments Nos. 8 or 9. Amendment No. 8 proposes to establish a licence holders' forum in national legislation. First, it must be borne in mind that regulations governing pilot licences, and commercial air transport and standards, are developed at EU level. The process for developing EU regulation is transparent and it provides for input from all stakeholders. Indeed, the basic regulation 2018/1129 specifically requires the European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, to involve social partners and other stakeholders when consulting on EU regulations. It is this EU-level focus that is the most effective means of influencing standards.

The IAA is the competent authority under many of these regulations. It does consult and engage with stakeholders. However, if the intention is to influence those standards, this amendment is not the way to do that. The way to do it is engaging at EU level. The IAA currently runs many different stakeholder events, often to address new or emerging issues. For example, my Department and the IAA held a symposium in Dublin Castle on the introduction of the EU unmanned aircraft system operations regulation. This involved both airlines and employee representative bodies. Other events can be targeted to a specific group, such as airport safety managers, to focus on specific topics.

The forum structures and stakeholders at these events need to be responsive to the particular issues that are being addressed. Once the new single aviation regulator is established, I expect and will ensure that this engagement will only develop further, in a collaborative way, and will involve the most comprehensive and effective stakeholders. I expect communication will be improved with licence holders and the engagement will be responsive and follow good practice. We will have a new board and chairperson all dedicated to open, transparent decision-making.

This is not a question of stakeholder engagement being useful or not. It is just a question of the most suited form of that engagement. That is where I understand the spirit of these amendments. To place this forum in national legislation would, in my opinion, lead to an inflexible and ineffective form of engagement, which would not contribute to a collaborative approach to regulation. Instead, it would place a formal, rigid and unresponsive structure in place at national level. In particular, the amendment fixes in primary legislation the forum's membership, participants, meetings, matters it considers and communication from the IAA. I question whether that is where we want the new regulator to dedicate its resources. We should just be mindful of that.

I consulted the IAA to highlight the concerns raised on stakeholder engagement, which this amendment is trying to address. I am conscious there is a perception that some stakeholders are not receiving an equal hearing. I have been assured that as the new regulator is embedded, there will be a renewed emphasis on broad and inclusive stakeholder engagement.

Such a forum for all licence holders will be on its agenda.

On amendment No. 9, which proposes the establishment of a licence holders charter in primary national legislation, it is important to note that licences for commercial aviation are issued in accordance with EU regulations. The rights, obligations and privileges of individual licence holders derive from these EU regulations. The European Aviation Safety Agency published these regulations and associated guidance materials. I understand that the published consolidated document for air crew licences runs to over 1,700 pages. Interpretation is driven by this material and if any stakeholder can seek clarity from the European agency directly.

On the amendment on a forum, the level at which we legislate is very important. If the intention is that the licensing system is operated in an integrated and transparent manner, the focus should be on a pan-European approach, not on primary national legislation.

I support the principle of open, transparent communication. However, the prescriptive roles and procedures set out in this amendment are not suited to that aim, nor are they the most effective way to bring it about. A particular issue of this amendment is that it requires formal written guidance but not from the body that develops the guidance.

I understand the desire to have a written charter setting out an understanding for all partners to consult. Such a charter would provide clarity to all stakeholders. The IAA has this with its customer charter. That is set out clearly and is available on its website. I have been assured by the IAA that it is committed to consulting stakeholders, including licence holders, on strategy in the coming months. This consultation will include plans for future engagements with licence holders. While I support the engagement of stakeholders, it is a different matter to prescribe such engagement in national legislation. For this reason, I cannot accept the amendment.

I appreciate the intention of these amendments. I am not in favour of setting a legal obligation to establish such a forum or charter within primary national legislation. This would not provide the flexibility to effectively manage consultation and stakeholder engagement. However, I will ask my officials to follow up and engage with the IAA to ensure that other forms of effective engagement can be progressed and implemented. I hope that explains the reasons I cannot accept these amendments.