Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As others have said, it seeks to reconfigure substantially our aviation and navigation regulation services. Sinn Féin is happy to support it because it is right that the commercial air navigation elements are separated from the regulatory matters of the Irish Aviation Authority.

The workers in this sector, especially those in Aer Lingus, have been systematically and continually let down by successive Governments. Indeed, Fianna Fáil, the Green Party, Fine Gael and the Labour Party were all party to the sale of Aer Lingus. Sinn Féin opposed selling off the remaining share of the company at the time. We remain opposed to it today because we believe the decision was short-sighted. So too are the decisions that are currently being taken by the Government and that are putting Aer Lingus at continuous risk. At the time of the sale of the remaining State share of the company, Deputy Howlin said that he welcomed the commitments offered to the existing workforce in Aer Lingus. He went on to state: "As the chief executive officer has indicated to the Minister, he remains committed to an employer-employee engagement model that has unions and the State's industrial relations apparatus at its heart." This was challenged by Sinn Féin at the time because we could see the dangers ahead for Aer Lingus workers. We all now see the folly of the decision to sell off our national airline. We do not buy the nonsense that there was no choice. There are always choices in politics. There are always decisions to be made and positions to be taken. People cannot simply pick and choose and say later that they are sorry and that somebody else made the decision.

Sinn Féin will be proposing amendments to the Bill before us, which I believe are supported by others in this House. We believe they will improve on the current Bill. They were tabled on Committee Stage in the Lower House but were then withdrawn pending engagement with the trade unions. Assurances were given by the Department that it is not necessary to legislate to achieve what is set out in those amendments and that, instead, a cultural change is under way. We are of the opinion that it is better to underpin and embed cultural change within an organisation with a legislative back-up. It is all well and good to promise culture change but since those assurances were given, a meeting was convened by the Irish Aviation Authority to discuss the post-Covid recovery and neither the workers nor their representatives were invited. It is much better to set out the obligations in black and white in order to facilitate the culture change that is needed. We are all living through the legacy of light-touch regulation when it comes to the construction industry. Let us not make the same mistake with the aviation sector. The personnel and the bodies that are in those regulatory authorities will change so we need to underpin that culture change with legislation.

One of the provisions we think should be included in the Bill relates to the need, which others have noted, for the IAA to have a graduated fines system. The proposed removal of a licence is the only stick it has. It is an extremely drastic measure that has never been used and is unlikely to be used except in the most egregious of circumstances. There must be more proportional sanctions for smaller measures to bring airlines into line with the regulations. One example of this was when Ryanair instructed staff to flaunt the regulations by not allowing people to sit in the emergency exit seats unless they paid a premium. We all know that the regulations indicate that able-bodied persons must be seated at emergency exits for the safe operation of flights. When Ryanair was instructed to bring its practices into line with the regulations, six weeks passed before it did anything about the matter. The regulator was powerless to compel it. The airline would be much more incentivised to act swiftly if it was hit where it hurts with fines that increased the more the problem persisted.

We will also be proposing an amendment in respect of peer supports. It is essential that peer supports are in place for crew. We learned the hard way what happens when crew do not receive the proper mental health supports with the Germanwings flight disaster. There needs to be a more structured approach to peer supports and the choice of peers should not be dictated by the airline. Peer support has to have the confidence of the crew and it has to be reflective of the culture in which the crew are working.

A third proposed amendment relates to a charter to clarify the rights and obligations of all parties involved.

The final amendment mandates a forum for licence holders to discuss air safety regulation in a transparent and efficient manner. This would give them the clarity and assurances they require, as well as the ability to consult with the IAA directly and not through their employer. We have heard of the disparity between the experiences of licence holders when engaging with the Irish regulator and when dealing with the same issue of concern with the British regulator and how quickly they were able to get clear responses from it in comparison with the Irish model. We need to have a system in place where licence holders can go directly to the regulators and get the assurance and clarity that they require. I look forward to submitting these and other amendments in due course and to the later deliberations on the Bill. I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to address these issues.