Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, one of our distinguished alumni. She served here in her day. It is good to have her back and it is good to have everybody present for this important Bill.

This debate is to adjourn at 5.45 p.m., if not previously concluded.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a bit ambitious.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. On Report Stage, each non-Government amendment must be seconded. Most people in the room are very experienced and familiar with all this.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed?

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a request on the grouping.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Senator saying it is not agreed?

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking for something before I say it is not agreed. The proposed groupings are amendments Nos. 1 and 2; 3 and 4; 5 to 7, inclusive, - all of which are fine; and 9 to 15, inclusive. Grouping amendments Nos. 9 to 15, inclusive, does not sit right and I propose that they be grouped as amendments Nos. 9 and 10,-----

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will do that when we come to it. We will proceed now. Is it agreed to group amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together?

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the co-operation.

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

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are Government amendments which clarify that AirNav Ireland has a function in the provision of aeronautical rescue co-ordination. The purpose of technical amendments Nos. 1 and 2 is to make clear that AirNav Ireland would have the viresto provide aeronautical rescue co-ordination for search and rescue services as per annex 12 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the Chicago convention. As Senators will recall, Schedule 2 to the Bill, as amended, provides that the new IAA will be responsible for oversight of the provision of aeronautical rescue co-ordination for search and rescue services by AirNav Ireland.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to make a remark before we proceed so that it will not appear to be directed at any individual. We will need to avoid Second Stage speeches and speak strictly to the amendments. Does anybody wish to speak to this grouping of amendments?

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak to what the Minister of State said. Will the IAA take over full responsibility for oversight of the search and rescue, SAR, contractor services or will the Department still have its own person carrying out oversight duties?

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there are more comments, we will take them now.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the answer to the question Senator Craughwell has asked is in the affirmative, I would like to know why the change is being made. Why is it being made now on Report Stage given that we have been talking about this Bill for nearly two years? Why at such a late stage would we make such a drastic realignment of regulatory authority by the IAA of our search and rescue services?

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

The IAA air navigation service provider, NSP, is responsible for the provision of aviation rescue co-ordination within Ireland's search and rescue region which is coincident with the Shannon flight information region. The IAA and NSP provide this service from the aviation rescue co-ordination centre, ARCC, in Shannon air traffic control centre, ATC, and the aviation rescue sub-centre in Dublin ATC. Marine rescue is provided by the Coast Guard from the marine rescue co-ordination centre, MRCC, in Dublin with marine rescue sub-centres in Valentia and Malin. Both the ARCC and the MRCC work closely with An Garda Síochána, which is the agency for the provision of land-based search and rescue.

On Committee Stage, Schedule 2 to the Bill was amended to make clear that the IAA has responsibility for regulation of the rescue co-ordination centres and rescue sub-centres aspect of annex 12 of the convention. Pursuant to SI 171 of 1995 and SI 172 of 1995, with the IAA air navigation service provider given responsibility for operationalising the aeronautical rescue co-ordination centre, responsibility for oversight of the ARCC fell to the IAA regulator. In essence the Bill is restating this position. As previously confirmed to Senator Craughwell, this amendment does not relate to the findings of the Air Accident Investigation Unit, AAIU, report into the R116 air accident.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are technical amendments relating to the vesting of AirNav Ireland. Amendment No. 3 to section 14(3) of the Bill clarifies that the functions conferred on AirNav Ireland by the Bill, which are currently functions of the IAA, will transfer to AirNav Ireland on vesting day and not on commencement of the Act.

Amendment No. 4 deletes sections 19(2), 19(3) and 19(4) of the Bill, which relate to ministerial certification of the value of the property to be transferred to AirNav Ireland from the IAA on vesting day and the creation of a debt due by AirNav Ireland to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in respect of the transfer of property to AirNav Ireland from the IAA. These provisions replicate sections 19(2), 19(3) and 19(4) of the Irish Aviation Authority Act 1993. While they were relevant in the initial creation of the IAA in 1993 and 1994, they are no longer relevant.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If they were relevant in 1993, how were they relevant when the Bill was originally drafted a number of years ago? Based on what it was proposed to do, how are we valuing this transfer of property? I call it "property", but it is probably not just property. Will the valuable transfers from one agency to the other not be captured in the Bill at all now? Are we just not valuing the transfer of what we are moving from one agency to the other?

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

The provisions replicated section 19 of the 1993 Act. This was originally when the IAA was being taken out of the Department of Transport. It was, I suppose, an error in the drafting. The valuation exercise is prior to the set-up of the vesting process between the IAA and AirNav Ireland. There is no intention that AirNav Ireland would have a debt to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Basically, this is a drafting error. It is a cut and paste from section 19 of the 1993 Act when the IAA was being taken out of the Department of Transport.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive response.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, are technical amendments developed in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General, which amend section 29 of the Bill, which deals with the accounts and audit of AirNav Ireland by removing references to balance sheets, profit and loss accounts and to cash flow statements. The purpose of these amendments is to reflect the changes that have occurred in financial reporting terminology.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As has been said, it is very late in the day. This Bill has been two years rolling through this House. It is rather late in the day to find technical amendments that should have been picked up much earlier. When I see amendments being brought forward because of erroneous drafting or whatever, I wonder if there are other things we have not found yet.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure I actually understand that they are technical amendments. I understand the Minister of State as saying they are updating in respect of accounting practices that we no longer do in respect of the lines that are being removed. In my world we certainly still have cash flow statements, balance sheets and audited accounts. We are withdrawing these words as if there is no requirement of a responsibility or obligation for this part of the agency to report, but we are not replacing them with anything. I am not really sure I understand what the Minister of State read out as explaining. Could I ask her to explain it again for me?

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

The Companies Act refers to balance sheets. However, there is also provision for the move to the term "statement of financial position" as provided for in accounting standards and as used in general in accounting practice. For example, section 274(1) of the Companies Act 2014 provides that:

“balance sheet”, in relation to a company, means a statement of assets, liabilities and financial position drawn up at a particular date showing the assets, liabilities and equity of the company at that date in a manner required by the financial reporting framework adopted by the company, and—

(a) for the avoidance of doubt, where the financial statements are prepared in accordance with IFRS, the expression means the statement of financial position referred to in those standards

In simple terms, the statement of financial position has replaced "balance sheet" in general usage, driven mainly by the adoption of the term in accounting standards. In respect of "profit and loss account", this term continues to be used both in law and in accounting standards. Entities which are not for profit such as charities and many semi-State bodies generally use the term "income and expenditure account" in place of "profit and loss account" in their financial statements. There has been no change in respect of the term "cash flow statements". The Commission for Aviation Regulation, CAR, is currently audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and these are recommendations coming from him.

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

Section 41 of the Bill provides that the proposed AirNav Ireland may charge for the functions performed by it pursuant to EU regulations listed in Schedule 1. Schedule 1 of the Bill lists 21 such regulations which relate to air navigation service provision and communications. Amendment No. 8 is a technical amendment which provides that the Minister may by order add or delete from the list of EU regulations listed in Schedule 1. This amendment ensures responsiveness to changes at European level vis á vis EU regulations under which, in Ireland's case, AirNav Ireland may impose charges.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 9 to 15, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 10 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 13 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 12. Amendments Nos. 9 to 15, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Not agreed.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope this will not slow us down at all. I would ask that the amendments are not discussed together. I ask that amendments Nos. 9 and 10 be taken together because they are the same; amendment No. 11 to be taken on its own; amendments Nos. 12 and 13 to be taken together; amendment No. 14 to be taken as a stand-alone; and amendment No. 15 to be taken as a stand-alone.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the Senator just explain the rationale for that? It will not prejudice her chance to speak on the amendments later.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While they are all amendments to the specific section, they are very different in their requirements or asks. They are not connected. For the sake of argument, one of the amendments as to the timing of the meetings has nothing to do with the membership of the committee, which has nothing to do with the election of a chair of the committee. While they are all amendments to the same section, they are in respect of distinctly different things and I would like them to be spoken to and voted on separately.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. In the spirit of co-operation we are engaged in for the good of the people we represent, while we would have argued the amendments are related, if the House wishes it otherwise I am prepared to accept the groupings the Senator has proposed. There nobody trying to pull a fast one. Amendment No. 10 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 9. The amendments are related and may be discussed together by agreement of the House. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

On Committee Stage, I committed to giving further consideration to the points made by Senators regarding the frequency of the meetings of the stakeholder forum. Amendment No. 9 provides that the stakeholders forum will meet no less than twice per year.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think we will be moving amendment No. 10 because it is exactly the same as amendment No. 9. For the record, I want to say I am very grateful to the Minister of State for her acceptance of this amendment.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Craughwell is similarly disposed.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am. There is one slight difference. It says "not less" and we say "minimum" but it is marginal.

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

Amendment No. 11 is a technical amendment which removes an unnecessary circular reference in the text of section 76.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have no idea what that actually means. Would the Minister of State mind explaining it again? I can see the value of having it in there but I do not see what it does by taking it out.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Senator Craughwell all right? I do not want to deny him an opportunity.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am looking at the amendment involving the insertion of paragraphs (a) and (b), which, I believe, would be at line 31.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State will respond to amendment No. 11.

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

It states that the consultation with stakeholders cannot commence until section 76 is commenced. It is basically a circular reference.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am a little confused. We are talking about amendment No. 12. Is that correct?

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

Amendment No. 11.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fine.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are related and may be discussed together. Amendment No. 13 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 12. If amendment No. 12 is agreed, amendment No. 13 cannot be moved. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 aim to address some of the concerns raised by Senators in the context of requiring that the names of the organisations represented on the forum to be published on the IAA website and that the rules and procedures ensure a focused representative participation by organisations in the forum and, for the purposes of transparency, the publication of the minutes of the forum.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify a point. Paragraph (a) reads, "specify the organisations invited to participate in the Forum, which shall include recognised aviation stakeholder groups, recognised aviation trade unions and representative bodies, certified aviation organisations and other interested parties,". When the Minister of State specifies the groups that are participating in this, will she find herself in a situation where others will feel excluded by not being represented on this forum? As the Minister of State is aware, I was never happy with the notion that we would include everybody involved in aviation, but are now going to have a situation where there will be massive lobbying by people who are excluded? This is for the sake of argument. Is the Minister of State opening herself up to a long and protracted period of people demanding to have a seat at the table?

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for taking on board the amendments we proposed on Committee Stage. It is very important not only to have the number of organisations cited in the legislation, but also the specificity of the organisations that are being invited. It is important that we put this out at the very beginning. Heretofore, I had argued that the large number of organisations the Minister of State is proposing to invite will probably prove very frustrating in the context of the body of work to be done. This may be for later amendments, but I am grateful that the Minister of State has acquiesced and is deciding to specify the organisations in the legislation.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 14

In page 55, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

“(aa) electing a chair of the Forum by members of the Forum”.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Notwithstanding our previous amendment, the Minister of State has agreed to determine the rules and procedures of the forum, including the composition of membership, in order to ensure good representation. What is missing from all of the legislation so far is who is going to chair the forum once it has been established. Amendment No. 14 seeks to insert the phrase "electing a chair of the Forum by members of the Forum". This would then be one of the first actions of the forum when it convenes. There is some real concern that the CEO is under the impression that he or she should appoint the chair of the forum. That certainly would not be acceptable to any of the members, nor should it be acceptable to us, as legislators. The amendment seeks to insert on page 55, between lines 3 and 4, the provision to elect a chair of the forum by members of the forum, as one of the first items on the forum agenda when it commences.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I totally support my colleague, Senator Doherty, on this. I would be extremely uncomfortable when the IAA appointing its own chairperson. This amendment makes perfect sense and would make for a far more democratic organisation from the outset. In light of the fact that the Minister of State will have to go back to Dáil Éireann with this Bill anyway because of the amendments that have been made, I ask the Minister of State to take on this one amendment. The Minister of State has been extremely co-operative so far and I would ask her to consider this also.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I invite the Minister of State to respond.

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

Amendment No. 14 is unnecessarily prescriptive. It is for the IAA to propose the chair of the forum, subject to consultation with the shareholders. There will be that consultation process as part of this.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The question is that amendment No. 14-----

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry Leas-----

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator cannot speak twice.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am the proposer of the amendment. I can speak twice.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator moved the amendment. I apologise.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Again, I am not even sure what the term "in consultation" means. Is this in consultation with the members of the forum, who have yet to be decided upon and whose names will be put on the website? The chair of the IAA who is the regulatory authority will consult on who should be the chair of the forum before the forum commences, and that it would be rubber stamped on the day. This is probably what the Minister of State has just summed up. This is not best practice for any organisation with anything I have ever been involved with, whether it was politics whether it is politics or sport or in the community. When an organisation comes together and puts a committee together for the purposes of achieving a body of work, the chair is elected by the committee and is a member of the committee. That is standard practice. What the Minister of State has just described is not standard practice, and it should not be acceptable to either the CEO of the IAA - even though we do not have one at the moment - or to the Legislature. It certainly is not acceptable to me if we are proposing to stitch up the process for who we are going to put in the chair before the meeting or the forum is even convened. I do not believe that is a good idea at all.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 55, to delete lines 12 to 16 and substitute the following:

“(4) (a) At its first meeting, the stakeholder forum will establish a sub-group of the stakeholder forum, referred to as the licence holders sub-forum, comprising representatives of licence holders and attested cabin crew, including but not limited to the following:

(i) operators;

(ii) pilots;

(iii) cabin crew;

(iv) engineers;

(v) air traffic controllers.

(b) The licence holders sub-forum will:

(i) hold at least two meetings of the licence holders sub-forum per calendar year, or as frequently as requested by at least two licence holder groups represented on the licence holders sub-forum;

(ii) develop procedures for the operation of the licence holders sub-forum, and submit to the company and the Minister;

(iii) develop a licence holders charter, no later than six months after establishment of the stakeholders forum, for submission to the company and the Minister. The Minister will make active the licence holders charter no later than 12 months after the establishment of the stakeholder’s forum.

(c) The Company will provide facilities (secretarial, meeting rooms, etc.) to the stakeholder’s forum and to the Licence holder’s sub-forum.”.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On Committee Stage we agreed to establish the forum which is now a stakeholders' forum rather than a licenceholders' forum. It is a very large group of people which has value in the sharing of information, particularly around safety. However, I am concerned that a very large group of people are now responsible for creating and drafting a licenceholders' charter. We know how important the licenceholders' charter is in steering and establishing a roadmap, guidance and all the regulatory frameworks that we expect our licence operators and holders to adhere to. We speak of the pinnacle of safety and this charter is the cream of the crop.

We are sitting in a large Seanad at the moment and we have all sat at committees where the larger the number of people on the committee the less productive it is, unfortunately. When there is so specific a job as creating a licenceholders' charter it should be a very small, focused and targeted group that, first, provides the information that feeds into the charter based on best practice, research and everything that we would expect and adhere to. It has to be a focused group and have a limited timeframe to provide the charter because if we leave it to the stakeholders' forum, we will be sitting here in a couple of years and still have no charter because the forum, which at least has agreed to meet twice a year, does not have the capacity to do that.

The Minister of State proposes that the company shall, as soon as practicable and after consultation with the forum, publish a charter. To my mind, that wording is extremely loose. It does not really give any imperative or directive or give credibility to an extremely important document or licence to the people who own the licences that operate our airlines and carriers in this country. Therefore, I have tabled an amendment to make a substitution for that section 4 in relation to the first meeting of the stakeholders' forum which will comprise a large number of people. Once the chair is elected, hopefully by the forum members and not the CEO, the first meeting should set up a licenceholders' forum as a sub-committee. We refer to that as the "Licence holder’s sub-forum". It should comprise representatives of the actual licenceholders in Ireland and also include, but not necessarily be limited to, all of our operators, pilots, cabin crew, engineers, air traffic controllers and anybody who has any input or involvement in the safe operation of aircraft carriers, airlines, operators and everything related to the safety of passengers and crew. I hope that the licenceholders' sub-forum would meet at least twice a year or as frequently as required in order to establish a licenceholders' charter as quickly as possible. We use language in law like "as soon as is practicable". To my mind, this is something that is incredibly important and urgent and I am not alone in that thinking. All our pilots and the current licenceholders share that view. I want that very targeted sub-committee to develop procedures for the operation of our licenceholders' forum and then to submit it to both the company, I assume the chair designate will have a representative on this sub-committee, and also the Minister of State so that she can see exactly what their objectives are.

I want them to develop a licenceholders' charter at the earliest possible opportunity. That should be no later than six months from the establishment of the forum. I do not think that is cutting it too fine. When it is developed, we should give it to the company and the Minister of State again for their perusal. I would then like the licenceholders' charter to be made legal within 12 months. There may be need for further engagement back and forth with the Department even though it does not have any aviation experts, as further interaction may be necessary.

The licenceholders would like to see this regulatory charter enabled and enacted no later than 12 months after the establishment of the overall stakeholders' forum. Therefore, for this to work well, we need the company to provide the facilities in order to host the meetings and to give them secretarial services. I do not think it asks too much. It asks a lot to expect a stakeholders' forum of maybe more than 40 or 50 organisations to have the wherewithal and directions to do what we seek, that is, to have a licenceholders' charter up and running within six months and legislated for within 12 months.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment. We have discussed this and thrashed it out in the House about the licenceholders' forum. The important thing is that there is what I would call a mean and keen group of people who have a common interest and the fog is being taken out of the committee. The stakeholders forum will include all sorts of people who have no role whatsoever in developing a licenceholders' charter, but the people specified in the amendment are directly involved in the safety and safe operation of the aircraft. From that point of view, it is perfectly reasonable that it does not detract in any way from the Bill. If anything, it adds to the Bill. I ask the Minister of State to consider the amendment seriously at this Stage. It does not change anything from what she wants to do at the moment with respect to the stakeholders forum. The only thing it does is to bring the experts in the area who are drafting a charter into a subcommittee. It makes perfect sense. I ask the Minister of State to consider it.

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

As regards amendment No. 15, there is nothing in section 76 precluding the IAA from establishing subgroups of the aviation stakeholders forum to address specific issues and involving specific stakeholders. Indeed, the IAA is looking at the models of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, stakeholder advisory board and the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, panel structure in terms of development of the forum and subgroups. The purpose of the licenceholders' charter is for the IAA regulator to set out the standards of engagement it will undertake with licenceholders. Section 76 foresees the IAA developing the licenceholders' charter and consulting on it with the forum. Amendment No. 15 sees a subgroup of licenceholders developing the licenceholders' charter and subsequently submitting it to the IAA and the Minister. In my view, this upends the relationship between the regulator and the regulated and, by including the Minister, interferes with the independence of the IAA. The fundamental point we all want to achieve is that a forum is established that provides for the voices of relevant stakeholders, including licenceholders, to be heard, and that these voices contribute to the development of the charter. As such, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As far as the Minister of State is concerned, there is nothing stopping the IAA from doing this. There is nothing stopping it doing anything it wants to do. It just has not done it to date, for the past 25 or 30 years. That is the concern. The lack of trust that currently exists in respect of engagements between licenceholders and the IAA has caused us to find ourselves at a point where we are perhaps trying to be, as the Minister of State put it, too prescriptive in legislation. The reason for that is the lack of trust that exists. While we have been discussing this Bill in recent years, the Minister of State has said the new broom within the IAA, the CEO-designate, is going to change that. Well, he is no more and, therefore, he has not managed to change it. We are now on an interim CEO and recruiting for a new one. Some people may have the hope that the new CEO will change the culture that currently exists in Irish aviation but I do not have any faith or trust in that. The Minister of State is telling me that, on a wink and a nod, the IAA can and will do this and that we do not need to tell it to do it, but it has not done anything to instil trust in an industry that has been so precarious in the context of safety, and we have seen the outcomes of that. That does not fill me with confidence. I accept that the amendment will be pressed and lost, and that is fine, but 12 months from now, when we still have no licenceholders' charter because no real engagement has taken place, whose responsibility will that be? Will it be our responsibility because we allowed it to go off on our watch? Will it be the responsibility of the Minister of State or her successor as Minister with responsibility for aviation? Who is going to be responsible for the lack of trust that currently exists in an environment and an industry that is so precarious from a safety perspective, which is crying out for regulations in order that it would be regulated on a safety perspective or basis, and when the events the Minister of State has stated will happen have not happened?

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16.

In page 56, to delete lines 3 to 39, and in page 57, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following:

“65B.(1) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), the company will, at no more than three-year intervals, conduct a review of the effectiveness of airline provisions concerning crew peer support programmes.

(b) The company will, not later than 12 months after the commencement of the Air Navigation and Transport Act 2022, conduct a review.

(c) The company will publish on the company’s website a report on the results of a review.

(d) A review will consider the following:

(i) the use of the programme by pilots;

(ii) the pilots’ perception of the programme;

(iii) the protection of confidentiality;

(iv) the promotion, by accountable managers of recognised organisations of aircraft crew members, of the use of the programme and trust in it;

(v) the access and referral to professional advice as necessary, including referral to mental and psychological health professionals;

(vi) confidential arrangements for the temporary cessation of duty;

(vii) the process for returning to work;

(viii) resourcing;

(ix) accessibility, including online access;

(x) the selection and training of peers;

(xi) the independence of peers from management or supervisory functions or any other conflict of interest.

(e) Nothing should prejudice a person’s right to seek assistance from a peer not working in the same organisation as the person seeking

assistance from the support programme.

(f) In conducting a review, the company will seek the direct feedback of pilots and other stakeholders, at the same time protecting the

confidentiality of all information provided.

(2) Any deficiencies or opportunities for improvement identified by the company in the course of a review shall be dealt with directly through

the company’s oversight programme or through the State Plan for Aviation Safety, as applicable.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prejudice the generality of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 laying

down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 of the

European Parliament and of the Council.

(4) In this section— ‘programme’ means a crew peer support programme referred to in subsection (1)(a); ‘review’ means a review referred to in subsection (1)(a).

(5) That the legislation will be reviewed after a period of 12 months with a view to putting Peer Support Programmes as operated by Airlines in

Ireland on a statutory footing following a period of consultation with stakeholders to determine the legislative position.”.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Quite apart from contact with IALPA and individual pilots making contact with me, what has driven the debate over the past two and a half years is the Rescue 116 incident. Perhaps if legislation had been in place alongside greater oversight, more engagement and a management willing to listen to its employees, things might have been highlighted sooner. In the report on Rescue 116, we find countless errors and examples of unwillingness to listen. A classic example is the overall lighting in the cockpit. That has driven me through all of this. If we had strong legislation in place and the ability for crew to go outside the organisations for which they work to seek support, things might have been highlighted much sooner and four lives might not have been lost.

I totally concur with everything Senator Doherty said. I recognise that it is not easy for her to be arguing from our side because she is a Government Senator. What we have tried to do is bring home the importance of the people who operate at the coalface of this organisation and the importance of their voice and of having systems in place to support them.Sadly, those systems have been lacking. I cannot let this last part of the Bill go without drawing down what I have said time and again, which is that a Department of Transport without aviation expertise in it is a farce beyond belief. We have an air accident investigation report that states we should have in-house expertise, and for some unexplainable reason we do not have that.

On the peer support group, if I were a pilot, I would want to be able to choose my peer support and go to that person to engage with him or her. It might give me the courage to raise issues at a much higher level if I had somebody in the background supporting me. To restrict that support to within the organisation only simply would not work. I ask the Minister of State, even at this late stage, to accept this amendment. She has been more than willing in recent months to assist and move this legislation forward. As Senator Doherty said, I believe we have the best we could get in the circumstances we have been working in. It is still not perfect - it has a long way to go before it is - and I hope we do not find ourselves back in the House in a few years' time eating humble pie and trying to amend this legislation to bring in some of the matters we have talked about over the past two and a half years. I will press the amendment.

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

The requirement in Irish law for crew peer support derives from EU Regulation 2018/1042. The regulation was developed in consultation with all stakeholders, including pilot representative bodies across Europe. The final regulation represents a consensual balance of the views of all stakeholders. The regulation came into effect in February 2021. The IAA is the competent authority in Ireland in respect of the regulation. All Irish airlines have a peer support programme in place and the IAA has audited all peer support programmes as per the EASA requirements.

Having listened to the views of Senators on Committee Stage, I introduced section 77, which requires the IAA to undertake a review of the effectiveness of crew peer support programmes and, in doing so, to take into account most of the criteria as originally proposed by Senators, including addressing matters such as the promotion of use of a programme and the trust in it; independence of peers from management or supervisory functions; and the selection and training of peers. Senators Craughwell and Doherty's amendment differs in three respects from the original text of section 77. It requires that a pilot should be able to seek assistance from a peer not working in the same organisation, three-yearly reviews of peer support programmes by the IAA, and a review of the legislative provisions after a period of 12 months.

In respect of the position that a pilot should be able to seek assistance from a peer not working in the same organisation, the EU regulation places the responsibility on airlines to ensure they have effective crew peer support arrangements in place. A critical element in the process is for the airline to be guided by a peer as to when a pilot needs to be rostered off and supported. The airline has to be satisfied the guidance is coming from a source it is satisfied with and has confidence in. What is being envisaged by this amendment is a very different model from what pertains now. It is unclear how it will be operationalised and what the consequences would be. The proposal requires very serious and careful consideration and input from the IAA and EASA reviews and discussion at the aviation stakeholders' forum. The IAA operates within a larger, integrated, single European civil aviation system. We need to be mindful that we do not create a parallel set of national level requirements conflicting with our EU responsibilities.

Turning to the proposal for three-yearly reviews of peer support programmes by the IAA and a review of the legislative provisions after a period of 12 months, it is important to note there will be two significant reviews of crew peer support in 2023 by both EASA and the IAA. EASA has started its process to review the effectiveness of peer support programmes, which it will complete by October 2023. The review will involve relevant stakeholders and will be based on data gathered with support from member states, EASA and other stakeholders. The target stakeholder groups are national competent authorities, such as the IAA, aircraft operators, flight and cabin crew, and other safety-sensitive personnel, in addition to associations representing pilots and cabin crew, airlines, and aviation psychologists and psychiatrists. Section 77 of the Bill as passed on Committee Stage already requires the IAA to undertake a review of crew peer support programmes operated by airlines within 12 months of commencement of the Bill and to publish the outcome of the review on its website. The IAA aims to conduct its review in parallel with the EASA review. I believe the output from these two reviews will provide the evidential basis for policy and legislative development in respect of crew peer support. As such, I cannot accept this amendment.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept what the Minister of State said, except for two points. She has made me even more concerned than I was when I stood up. She seems to be under the impression that peers or people who currently work in airlines have to go to the peer support person in their own airline. She has stated this is the current practice. This is not the current practice and it is not precluded by EASA regulations. We absolutely have licence holders going to peers outside their own airlines at present because, as the Minister of State well knows, we have airlines whose management appoint the peers but they do not have the trust of people.

Either the Minister of State is misinformed - I would like her to confirm that maybe she is - or her understanding of the current practices under the EASA regulations at present is ill-informed. Maybe that is why the letter she sent to IALPA suggested that, if anybody went to peer support outside their own airline, they would lose the privacy and dignity entrusted to them within the EASA regulations. Absolutely nowhere in the regulations does it state that somebody has to go to the peer support person within their own airline but, more important, because the practice is that some licence holders are going to peers outside their own airlines, the Minister of State must confirm to this House that she does not believe, and it is not the practice, that people are losing the respect, privacy and dignity they would get in their interactions with whatever peer they go to. She has just suggested and put on the record that they will, which is a very dangerous place for us to be.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Minister of State and all concerned. It was a very good and spirited debate. People were very dedicated to getting this right. We will have a few valedictory words from each participant. We will have a couple of sentences from them without revisiting the issues because I have to get my tea. Does the Minister of State want to wait until the end?

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

Yes.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everybody for their co-operation. This has probably been the longest debate on a Bill I have ever been involved in other than the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act a number of years ago, which took a while. As I said, I believe the Bill is better today than it was when it arrived in this House but it still has some major flaws because of its omissions. Having said that, I thank the Minister of State for her engagement. She has always been respectful of our ambitions. I hope we never find ourselves in a position of having to deal with the omissions.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be very brief. I thank the Minister of State and everybody for their participation. I took what Senators Doherty and Craughwell said very seriously. While we have concerns, we agree that the Bill is an awful lot better now than it was two and a half years ago. It is to be hoped that everything will run smoothly. The matters Senators Doherty and Craughwell tried to get across are very serious.I would not dismiss it or make little of it at all. It was very important we had that debate. I know the Minister of State will thank her officials, but I always thank officials in these situations.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and her officials for their perseverance, tenacity and ability to listen. As Senator Murphy said, there may have been a lot of turbulence in the air. The contributions of Senator Craughwell and my good friend, Senator Doherty, have lent to this Bill being debated. While there may be differences in the jets stream around what we are trying to achieve, ultimately, this Bill is about reform. In tandem with that, it is about safety, security, regulation and consumer protection. At the heart of our debate, in the nuances and amendments, the motivation has been about that.

Having served as the chair of a committee and being here 15 years, and hopefully mellowing and maturing a small bit, one has to listen to the wider engagement with – I hate using the word "stakeholder" – those involved and those in the know. While the Minister of State and those involved in the industry were very much of the view that this Bill should be passed as a matter of urgency, because it is extremely important, there was a need to engage. We need to give the Minister of State credit today. She listened and made amendments, notwithstanding the sincere views of my colleague, Senator Doherty, about the flaws. That is what our parliamentary democracy is about. The importance of pre-legislative scrutiny is making legislation better and ensuring that we ultimately achieve that.

I raised issues at the beginning of the Bill, having had representations from members of the staff around the vesting day and their rights and entitlements in the transfer. Our aviation sector is very important. We are an island nation dependent upon connectivity and dependent upon airlines. We are blessed. If one goes back to the Tuskar documentary on RTÉ recently, we have been very fortunate that we have had no similar type of event, notwithstanding the contribution Senator Craughwell made around the issues of search and rescue.

We must thank the men and women who work for us and serve with us in the context of our air rescue, our aviation in terms of air traffic control and our pilots and flight crew. What they do is extremely important.

I thank the Minister of State for her contribution, participation and engagement. I thank the Leas-Cathaoirleach for his chairing. I thank Senator Horkan, in his absence, who was in the Chair for much of the debate and did a tremendous job. I thank Senators Craughwell and Doherty for teasing out and making this Bill a better piece of legislation.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I absolutely concur with Senator Buttimer’s remarks about our colleague, Senator Horkan, in his absence. It is important it is acknowledged. I absolutely also concur with his remarks about our good colleagues, Senators Doherty and Craughwell. Senator Craughwell was a main protagonist, for want of a better term, but a very sincere one.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to acknowledge the officials who sit here for hours and hours on end, providing briefs to Ministers, listening to what has been said and bringing that back to their Department. That is how amendments get made and brought here. I would like to acknowledge their presence here and thank them for the work they do. It would be remiss of me not to thank the Irish Air Line Pilots' Association, IALPA, for its engagement with all of us and its genuine concern for its members. I particularly mention Captain Cullen, who has been outstanding in the way in which he has engaged with me over the past couple of years on this Bill. He, like myself and Senator Doherty, only wanted the best for his members. As a former leader of a trade union, I can fully understand that.

I thank the Minister of State her patience. I know this was deeply frustrating and difficult for her. We are both county people who share the same county. I acknowledge the work she has done and the way she has come along with this Bill. I thank her for that, because there is a genuineness about what she has done and I appreciate that.

I cannot close without going back to our search and rescue, SAR. I appeal to the Minister of State and her officials to engage with me on the forthcoming SAR contract. It is simply not good enough to say it is already in black and white and we cannot do anything about it. The United Kingdom has gotten 18 helicopters on 12 bases for €1.6 billion. We can do an awful lot better in this country for its citizens. Hiding behind legislation or EU regulations or claiming that people are working for people who are participants in the tendering process is grossly unfair and highly insulting to me. My only wish is to get the best deal for Ireland, our pilots and crews. I will leave it at that.

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

I thank the Leas-Cathaoirleach for chairing the session. I thank the Senators for their contributions and the amendments they tabled, some of which will now be included in the Bill before it is returned to the Dáil. While we may not have agreed on all of the provisions in this Bill, we have worked constructively to reach a compromise on a number of provisions, including crew peer support programmes - the amendment introduced following our engagements - which will require the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, to undertake a review the effectiveness of the crew peer support programmes, the amendment providing for the IAA to convene an aviation stakeholders forum and the provision requiring the IAA to publish a licence holders charter setting out the standards of engagement that will be undertaken by the IAA with the holders of licences. Our constructive engagement has also seen an amendment introducing reducing from five years to three years the time interval for statutory safety examinations of the IAA. Connected to this is the amendment removing the Minister’s discretion to withhold publication and to require publication of the report on a website maintained by the Government. Finally, an amendment to provide that the IAA consult with stakeholders in the preparation of its statement of strategy has been introduced.

The Bill provides for significant institutional changes to how aviation is regulated in Ireland. Specifically, at a high level, it provides for the separation of the IAA with the safety regulation side of the IAA to be merged with Commission for Aviation Regulation, CAR, to create a stand-alone aviation regulator. The Bill also sees new mechanisms being introduced with regard to aviation regulation and engagement, for example, the forum and charter and new responsibilities for the IAA in response to an aviation sector that has changed significantly over the past 29 years since the enactment of the Irish Aviation Authority Act 1993. This Bill, upon enactment, will make a real difference to how aviation is regulated in Ireland for the benefit of the travelling public and the aviation industry alike.

I thank my officials who have put in a significant amount of work on this Bill and have been completely engaged throughout the process and wanted to work with colleagues across the House. I thank the staff of the House and everyone involved in bringing this legislation forward.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for their co-operation and, indeed, Senator Buttimer for his kind remarks. My sole effort all through was to combine scrupulous fairness with smooth running. It is hard balance to strike, but we tried. I thank him for that.