Regina Doherty (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

My amendment No. b4ais more in line with what is being sought by licenceholders and those responsible for the industry. While I do not disagree with the Minister of State's statement that she engaged, much of the engagement in the Oireachtas for many months was to try to persuade all of us that what was being asked for on behalf of the industry was not necessary in the first place. It is probably obvious to everybody that because of the length and duration of the debate, we find ourselves with an amendment from the Government that is so watery that it does not do any of what the industry was looking for in the first place.

Before I go off on a tangent and talk about the differences between "may", "shall" and "will" in legislation, I must state that while the Government amendment may appear to address the request from the industry, it does not give any modicum of control or comfort to the licenceholders seeking to be regulated in the first place. Therefore, my amendment, which was formulated through co-operation with the experts in the industry to whom I spoke and asked for advice, would require the IAA to hold a twice-yearly forum, known as the "Aviation Licence Holders Forum". It would not be a stakeholders' forum, to which any Tom, Dick or Harry could be invited if he had anything to do with the aviation industry. The forum would include the people who must do all the training to obtain the licences that allow them to meet the regulatory requirements of the State. We want a licenceholders' forum that will sit twice per year, not whenever the IAA chairman designate decides it will sit. I want to ensure in legislation that it will sit twice per year. The reason is that we want to foster, maintain and improve aviation safety, and also support and develop a positive aviation safety culture for the entire aviation community.

It is important for us to put in legislation a twice-yearly meeting involving designated members because of the complete lack of such meetings to foster a culture in the past ten to 15 years. The industry is crying out for it. Unfortunately, the response from the Government has been to say we will have such legislation, but there have been no timeframes and no lists of those who should attend forum meetings. It has watered down the licenceholders' forum to a stakeholders' forum. It really does not do what we are asking for. We want the forum members and their names to be specified. We are seeking to ensure that the licenceholders' group, the certified aviation organisations and the trade unions will be at the table, not any Tom, Dick or Harry. I am referring not only to the people involved in creating and maintaining the regulatory system but also to those involved in ensuring the regulatory system to which they are subject is adhered to in a manner that ensures the safety of all those working or travelling on our airplanes.

We want the legislation to determine the rules and procedures of the forum. The CEO designate spent many hours trying to convince us that he needed the authority to decide what should or should not happen at the meetings and when they should happen. I really do not understand that. This legislation is supposed to regulate an industry. This should not be done on a wing or a prayer – excuse the pun – and meetings should not be at the behest of whoever happens to be in the top job on the day. I really do believe that we should have formality and a meeting twice per year, and we should know who all the members are. All the other members should know. One should be compelled to attend the meetings. If ten people representing ten organisations are to be on a forum and one, two or more consistently do not show up, it renders it ineffective. That is exactly what has happened over the past ten to 15 years. Those interested parties and agencies that are genuinely concerned about discussing and sharing safety concerns and improvements within the industry have shown up, whereas some actors have just not bothered at all. That makes the entire promise of a regulatory system redundant. We are seeking to determine the rules and the procedures.

When the forum meets for the first time, we want it to meet for several purposes. We want it to promote the sharing of best practice among the actors in the industry. We want this to be sincere and honest. We want engagement with the companies on matters relating to the regulation of aviation safety in commercial air transport. The forum should ensure the provision of views on proposals for EU or national regulatory changes concerning aviation safety. Another purpose is the establishment of routine communication channels to enable the sharing of aviation lessons learned, best aviation practices, aviation safety performance indicators and the provision of information on specific aviation safety risks that become apparent to the agency representatives and actors around the table.

Arising from the first meeting of the forum, which we believe should be scheduled once this legislation is passed, we want the company, no later than three months after consultation with the forum, to publish, arising from its deliberations, discussions and sharing of information, a charter, to be known as the first Licence Holders Charter, on the company's website so all can see what the forum and the charter standards are. The reason is that we want everything to be transparent so that everybody, including not only those who are co-operating but also those who are not, can genuinely see where the imbalance is within the industry.

We want the general principles and policies relating to enforcement actions concerning infringements of the licenceholders' charter to be made public. We want a written, publicly available response from the company on any refusal to grant a licence, suspension or revocation of a licence or amendment of a licence. We are trying to establish the right to avail of an appeal mechanism concerning any refusal to grant a licence to an applicant or suspension of a licence. We want to establish the right to make representations regarding an enforcement action undertaken by the IAA. The standards should refer to the general guidance that the company will give to the holders of licences as regards the discharge of their obligations under the regulations set down.

In stark contrast to the if-and-when-and-maybe amendment tabled by the Government, mine sets out the regulatory system licenceholders would like to be adjudicated under, not some wink-and-nod system, as has been relayed to us at many meetings we have had with the IAA recently.