Regina Doherty (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this amendment is to amend section 77, which seeks to review crew peer support programmes that are in existence arising from the EASA regulations that were introduced a number of years ago. There have been many hours of conversation not only between Senators and the Minister of State but also between Senators and the CEO designate - who is no longer CEO designate - with regard to the culture of mistrust that exists that I mentioned in connection with the previous amendment.

What I am proposing are small changes to the review proposed in section 77, but they feed into the lack of trust and the culture that exists in the aviation industry between the regulator, the airlines and the licence holders. The first thing I seek to amend is that subject to paragraph (b), the company will, at intervals no longer than three years, conduct a review. The Minister of State is proposing to have a single review. If that single review produces anything, it should be that there is a need to have recurring reviews in order that things can be amended. The way section 77 is currently drafted means that the IAA will conduct a single review of crew peer support at whatever time it deems fit. This is a missed opportunity. We should say that the review should be conducted at intervals of no less than three years and then go on to say that, after the commencement of the Act, we will have a review completed within 12 months. The Minister of State said that, but it is interesting that the first paragraph of her amendment indicates that a review will be carried out at whatever time the IAA may determine. We want the review conducted within 12 months. What is proposed in the section seems counterintuitive. I am seeking to amend section 77 by stating that not only do we want a first review - which will be the first review of the crew peer support programme since it came into existence - but that we want it to happen every three years in order that we can change, learn, modify, adapt and improve what are non-uniform crew peer support programmes operated by the airlines in Ireland. That is what is proposed in the first part of the amendment.

Paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and so on of the amendment all seek to do exactly what the Minister of State is doing. That is, until we reach the point where ambiguity has arisen as a result of the ambiguity contained in a letter written by the Minister of State in response to concerns raised by IALPA. There seems to be a concern that, under the current EASA regulations, a licence holder or crew member can seek support from a crew peer support officer outside of his or her airline. The Minister of State suggested in correspondence that the person involved would lose the sacrosanctity of privacy and of their personal information being kept within the organisation. That is not mentioned anywhere in the EASA regulations. It is not current practice and, therefore, is not the current law of the EU. I am not sure from where the Minister of State got that information. Perhaps she might clarify that.

We need to ensure that crew peer support people will be appointed by their peers and not by the management of the airlines, as continues to happen with some airlines. It defeats the purpose of having somebody you can trust and go to if the person put in place for you to go to was appointed by management.

The second part of the differential between our amendment and the proposals in section 77 is that nothing should prejudice a person’s right to seek assistance from a peer who works in a different organisation from the person seeking assistance from the support programme. This is important because it was the Minister of State who created the ambiguity that now exists. If not in this amendment, the Minister of State needs to seek a way to reinstate the clarity we had before the letter to IALPA. If I worked in Aer Lingus and I wanted to go to the crew peer support person in Norwegian Airlines, there is no way I should be precluded from doing so, and I would not be precluded. Furthermore, I would not lose any of the protections of the EU regulations in respect of my privacy or my protected status. Nor would I lose out on the protective nature of what peer support is supposed to be. We need to make matters implicit in the legislation, particularly in view of the ambiguity to which the response to IALPA gave rise. Perhaps the Minister of State just needs to make it clear that what was contained in the response was a mistake or a drafting error and that it is not the case. She might also to reiterate on the record that, regardless of what peer person is consulted and regardless of what airline a person works for, the EASA regulations ensure that a individual's privacy and dignity are respected as per the regulations.

I do not expect this amendment to be accepted. We have shown the laissez faire attitude between the Department and the regulator. We are drafting legislation in order that the IAA can regulate an industry, but we are literally giving it, on a wing and a prayer, the ability to determine what it does and does not do and when it does or does not do it. Indeed, if the IAA does not want to do it at all, the legislation we are discussing ensures that does not have to it and can use its get-out-of-jail card.

We have been talking about this legislation now for two and a half years. It has been amended significantly since it came to us from the Dáil. I thank colleagues for their support. I have probably driven some of them mad over the past few months, but I have to tell them that this Bill is far better today than it was when it first came to the Seanad. This shows the true value of scrutiny of the second House. I am genuinely seeking that the Minister of State show leadership and say that peer support programmes are incredibly important. If we do not value the employees - in this case, the licence holders - who have in their hands our safety every time we get onto one of their aeroplanes and if we do not value and respect the dignity of the programmes that are supposed to mind the mental and physical health and the well-being of those people, that says a great deal

I will press the amendment. I ask the Minister of State to speak to the two minor changes to section 77 that I propose. Most importantly, I would like clarity on the fact that she previously stated that an individual seeking assistance from a peer airline support person from another airline would prejudice his or her right to dignity, privacy and respect.