Hildegarde Naughton (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their contributions. In my view, the substantive issue in Senator Doherty's amendment is the distinction between an "aviation stakeholders forum" and a "licence holders forum". Under the EASA regulatory safety system, which is the EU Regulation 2018/1139 and associated implementing rules, there are a number of identifiable stakeholders. There are licence holders, certificate holders and declared organisations. In addition, under national legislation, there are other terms such as permissions and approved organisations. So licence holders would be individual pilots, air traffic controllers and aircraft mechanics. Certificate holders are organisations that have been audited and deemed to meet the safety regulatory requirements, for example, airlines, EU certified airports such as Cork, Shannon and Dublin airports, maintenance providers and approved training organisations. Declared organisations are organisations that make a declaration to the IAA that they comply with specific rules, for example, declared training organisations, non-commercial complex aircraft operators, and special operations such as aircraft used for specialised activities such as agriculture, surveying etc.

In addition, under the national regulation, we have other terms such as permissions, approved organisations, and people operating under permits. Permissions relate to the IAA issuing permits to carry out certain specialised aviation operations such as search and rescue, aerial work and flying displays. Approved organisations relate to the IAA approving organisations to carry out certain aviation operations such as flight training and the maintenance of aircraft. For example, there are five flight training organisations and seven type rating training organisations approved by the IAA.

By using the expression "licence holders forum" in primary legislation we may inadvertently limit the participation to just pilots, air traffic controllers and mechanics with no scope for others who would have an important input to make on aviation safety matters. The expression would cast the membership far too narrowly.

Having consulted with the IAA, my expectation is that the membership of the aviation stakeholders forum would be drawn from recognised aviation trade unions, for example, IALPA and Fórsa; certified aviation organisations such as air operator certificate holders; certified airports; approved training organisations; certified maintenance organisations; representatives bodies such as the Federation of Aerospace Enterprises in Ireland, which is the national trade association that represents the aviation and aerospace industries in Ireland under the aegis of IBEC; recognised aviation stakeholder groups, for example, the airlines' organisation IATA, the International Federation of Air Pilots Association and the European Cockpit Association; declared organisations; and other interested parties such as the air accident investigation unit of the Department, AirNav Ireland and EASA.As the focus of the forum is on aviation safety, the inclusion of representation from areas of travel, trade, tourism, hotels and passenger rights is not envisaged. I hope that gives Senators some perspective on who will be on that forum and as such I cannot accept amendment No. b4a.

On the issue with the terms "may", "will" and "shall", the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has advised my Department as follows:

In effect "shall" is the same as "will". "Shall" implies obligation, as does "will". Some jurisdictions use "will" instead of "shall" as it is deemed to be more user friendly and colloquial language. However, the drafting practice in this jurisdiction is that there is an obligation to use "shall".

I refer to Senator Doherty's amendment on the timelines, including the requirement that the forum convene twice per year and the requirement that the IAA publish its first licenceholders charter no later than three months after the consultation with the forum. These requirements are unnecessarily prescriptive. Regarding the forum, there could be years when the forum wants to meet more than twice per year. This amendment effectively means that flexibility in convening the forum is removed. On the licenceholders charter, the stakeholders' forum is consulted on same and therefore the forum would need to be established to inform the development and shape of the charter. It is also envisaged that there would be a stakeholder public consultation on the charter. All of this takes time and three months would not be sufficient. It would not give the opportunity for the forum members to fully participate in the development of the charter but I assure Senators that my Department will be keeping the pressure on in the progress of that charter and that there will be an urgency around it.

On the requirement that the IAA, by notice on its website, specify the names of the members of the forum, I presume Senator Doherty intends this to mean the names of organisations participating in the forum as opposed to the individuals representing. While I cannot accept the Senator’s amendment as drafted, I will consider this issue in advance of Report Stage. Also, in relation to the twice-yearly meetings I could look at a suggested wording of "a minimum of twice-yearly meetings" in relation to the forum and come back on Report Stage on those issues.