I propose that petitions considered by the committee at this meeting and previous meetings may be published and that the replies from the Departments and other bodies may also be published. Is that agreed?
Decisions on Public Petitions Received
Agreed.
We have four petitions for consideration today. First, No. P00013/24, "Justice and recognition for the state-abused", is from Mx Corwyn Bertrand-Fuchs and states:
I want recognition for those abused in the state-run homes. I want a public apology and the last abusive children's home still open closed. Separate public petition underway.
The secretariat wrote to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth seeking a response advising of its views within 14 days. The secretariat received a response from the Department on 22 May 2024. The recommendation is that we publish the Department's response. It is recommended that the correspondence from the Department be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Do the members have any views or is that agreed?
Agreed.
The second petition, No. P00033/24, "Toxic fumes on Aer Lingus flights - Severe and increasing danger to public health and safety - Urgent", is from Mr. Thomas O'Riordan and states:
On the 5th of June 2023, whilst operating as a Captain on an Aer Lingus flight I was poisoned by toxic fumes and rushed to Beaumont hospital by emergency ambulance, where I stayed for five days. I had reported fumes on this particular aircraft when operating the previous day. We were assured the issue had been resolved, it was not. Aer Lingus failed to locate and isolate the source of the fumes. The aircraft was released for service in an unsafe state, putting both crew and public at high risk. After my poisoning, oil was found in the engine of the aircraft and the engine was removed. Aer Lingus have experienced 22 such fume events between January 2023 and January 2024. This is verifiable from internal data, along with information that the trend is increasing. This is a public danger issue, in that both crew and passengers may have experienced toxic fume exposure without their knowledge. The Department of Transport and A.A.I.U have failed to class my particular incident as a "serious incident" in alignment with I.C.A.O Annex 13, definition of a "serious incident". They have yet to confirm whether all 22 fume incidents were investigated and the outcomes. I hereby request that the issue of large scale and increasing amounts of fume poisoning of both passengers and crew on Aer Lingus aircraft be investigated and raised for discussion in Dail Eireann. This is an urgent matter of public health and safety. I along with a number of my colleagues suffer from long term effects of such poisoning. Such effects prohibit the ability to work and seriously curtail quality of life. Such effects also reduce life longevity. Action taken to resolve issue of concern before submitting the petition.
- I Have attempted to have this issue investigated by the I.A.A, A.A.I.U.
- I Have attempted to have this issue investigated internally in Aer Lingus.
- I Have initiated a grievance procedure within Aer Lingus.
- I Have lodged a complaint with the H.S.A.
- I have raised the issue with the H.S.A and Dept of Transport
There have been responses back from the Department of Transport and the AAIU. The recommendation is that the correspondence from the petitioner be forwarded to the Department of Transport for comment within 14 days. Do the members have a view?
I do. There has been a lot of correspondence on this. I know it has come up before, but we are in a possible position of industrial action with Aer Lingus. We are coming into the summer, which is probably the busiest season. Families have been saving for the whole year to go on holiday and are now facing the prospect of not getting to go on holiday at all. We are now discussing an allegation that there may have been over 37 incidences. I had a look at what the AAIU said and at the correspondence. I want to log it on the record because it says:
The A.A.I.U decided not to investigate my incident, quoting that it did not happen in flight. My incident of toxic fume poisoning was logged in (the) Air Safety Report .... as happening on the descent into Dublin Airport.
Surely the pilot was the fellow who was driving the plane, not the Air Accident Investigation Unit. That is my understanding. This raises concerns. I see issues in health and safety reports regarding what is deemed as serious. I know from reading the records on this that the AAIU said it was not a major accident. It is mentioned somewhere else - perhaps involving an Airbus A320 in Heathrow Airport or something like that - that the relevant aviation investigation unit considered it to be a serious incident. Oil getting into any engine is serious, never mind oil getting into an engine on an airplane and fumes leaking into a cockpit. I cannot understand how this is not being taken seriously. These are the ones that allegedly have been reported, 37 I think-----
There have been 38.
It is 38 incidences. I cannot understand why it has not acted on this. It is typical, especially in this country, that we end up being reactive instead of proactive in trying to address these matters. Agencies should put up their hands and say if there have been mistakes. There have been many investigations in this area in recent years. There are ongoing investigations with Boeing. In this case, the pilot who was in charge of a plane that was descending into Dublin Airport has been told by the AAIU that it did not happen in mid-flight. No matter whether it happened at the start of the flight, the middle of the flight or the end of the flight, it is still in flight. I have seen the response here, and it is like those provided by many Departments. I could be wrong, but nobody seems to want to put up their hand and say that there could have been a major incident here. Maybe we have overlooked it once or twice, but it cannot be overlooked 38 times if these are all different incidences. I would like to invite Mr. O'Riordan to come before the committee.
It is like everything. When I ask the mental health committees who is the expert when it comes to suicide, they bring in psychologists and psychiatrists. I ask whether we could bring in the three kids who were friends with the 16-year old who took his or her life. They are the experts because they are the ones who are living the pain. They are the ones who grew up with the individual and shared the life experiences. That is who I call the experts. I ask the Chair to bring Mr. O'Riordan before this committee and if possible let him explain to us, as he was the pilot, exactly what he felt. We can get the true stories and the facts from him, and then go back to the air investigation unit or whatever.
I would like to refer to page 17 of a report that I found. I ask the committee to bear with me because my notes are mixed up. I found something interesting in the last paragraph. This is the good part because it relates to responsibility, accountability and who actually calls the shots here. Page 17 of the AAIU's report, which sets out its observations on the petitioners's submission to this committee, states:
As stated in Regulation 4 of SI460 of 2009; 'the AAIU shall be functionally independent of the State aviation authorities, responsible for the operation or regulation of air-worthiness certification, flight operations, aircraft maintenance ...”. Any data indicating a concern surrounding airworthiness or an aircraft maintenance are a matter for the Operator and the National Aviation Authority.
We are flipping and flopping over three different agencies because the operator, whoever it is, is passing the buck and saying it is their problem. The AAIU is saying "maybe it is not us; it is the national aviation authority's responsibility". Who is actually responsible for this? I suggest getting Mr. O'Riordan in to ask him those questions. When we ascertain who is responsible and where the buck stops on this, I suggest that we get them in.
As I said, I have worked with protected disclosures. If there are major concerns in protected disclosures regarding the health and safety of an individual or others, you have to act on it swiftly. If there are 322 people on each of the 38 planes and there is a possibility of a major incident with lives being lost, I will not sit here and say that it does not sound right but it will be okay. That is what I have to say on this. I am nervous that something bad could happen. We have been here talking about it. Somebody else should be doing his or her job.
I have been asked to read from Mr. O'Riordan's letter. I agree with the Deputy and will come back to his suggestion in a minute. The letter states:
The A.A.I.U did not categorise the incident in which I was poisoned as a 'serious incident', selectively quoting I.C.A.O Annex 13. Had they quoted Annex 13 fully and completely, they would have quoted from Attachment C of the same document. Attachment C states that any incapacitation of a pilot, and/or the use of emergency oxygen, and/or the presence of fumes/smoke, experienced singularly or collectively, should be deemed a ‘serious incident’. All of these three particulars were present in the case of my toxic fume poisoning.
I agree with Deputy Buckley. I would go further and propose that we ask Mr. O'Riordan in and afterwards bring in Aer Lingus and the AAIU as soon as possible.
There is also the aviation authority. It mentions three of them. Much of this is copied and pasted. Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation states:
5.1.2 The State of Occurrence shall institute an investigation into the circumstances of a serious incident when the aircraft is of a maximum mass of over 2 250 kg.
That is a small plane.
This states that the AAIU decided not to investigate the incident. The 38 reported fume events in 12 months is equivalent to 7,500 people on planes. We see in America that there are fears about plane-makers. If there is a problem, it should be examined to the fullest. We are just talking about one airline, as far as we are aware. There was another incident in the last few weeks. One of the fume incidents was on an Airbus A330, with 250 passengers on it. As the Deputy said, when we are informed of this, we have a duty to take it further and try to investigate as much as we can. That means bringing in Mr. O'Riordan at the earliest possible opportunity and bringing back in the three bodies to ask them questions.
I would hate to be sitting here in a month or six months, discussing an air tragedy in Ireland. There are red flags which have not even been reported in the news, which I find strange. Is it for fear of causing panic or people cancelling flights? It is not about that. It could be a major health and safety concern. We have an obligation and duty to act on it swiftly, so we do not end up with a disaster. We should not be a reactive society but should instead be as we are now, which is proactive. I second what the Cathaoirleach said. We should get that gentleman, Mr. O'Riordan, and those agencies in, whether or not it is on the same day. We should try to ensure we are not going to have a major incident.
Mr. O'Riordan's letter also states:
The correspondence quotes EASA studies on the dangers of toxic fumes on aircraft; once again, they have selectively chosen the evidence to suit the narrative; a 2017 EASA study on toxic fume events quotes that there may well be danger from toxic fumes and that further intensive real-time research is required.
With that many reported incidents, I think that should have been done a long time ago. We will move on. The proposal is that we ask Mr. O'Riordan to appear before this committee. The three agencies may be invited in on a different day, or for a separate session on the same day. I suggest that we bring him in for a full meeting as well as having the three bodies at a separate meeting.
I will second that.
If we invite Mr. O'Riordan first, then maybe at the follow-up meeting we can have Aer Lingus, the AAIU and the aviation authority. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next petition is No. 41 of 2024, on travel grievance for short stay and tourism purpose within CTA for residents, from Mr. Nagesh Siddegowda. It states:
UK and ROI government to establish legislation to allow residents of UK and ROI travel within CTA for short stay and tourism purpose without the need for a visa from each other. The population of Non-British / Irish / EU citizens in UK and ROI is over 3% of the total population. Both UK and Irish Government has to initiate reciprocal arrangements to allow residents of UK and ROI to travel within CTA for short stay and tourism without the need for a visa. This would increase the tourism potential, airport transit, ease of travel and benefit local business in tourism and travel industry. BIVS was introduced to foster tourism in both countries, but over 3% of residents within both countries face complex system of requiring VISA to travel within CTA for tourism.
This petition is seeking to include residents of UK and ROI to travel within CTA for the purpose of short stay and tourism and foster tourism as proposed under BIVS for regular tourists.
The action taken so far to resolve the issue before submitting the petition includes making a representation to all UK and Republic of Ireland authorities, which has not gained traction. He states, "I have raised FOI requests to both UK and ROI authorities and the impact of this grievance is supported through FOI response and latest census reports." The secretariat wrote to the Department of Justice seeking a response advising of its views within 14 days. The secretariat received a response on 23 May 2024. The recommendation is that we publish the response from the Department of Justice and forward the correspondence from the Department of Justice to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Do members have any views?
The response from the Department of Justice is written in black and white. The Cathaoirleach could elaborate but there is no point.
That is agreed. The next petition is No. 42 of 2024, "Vote against the migration pact", from Mr. Ciarán McMahon. I suggest that we push this back. A court case is going on at the minute about the migration pact. A vote was not taken on it last night in the Dáil and there is a High Court injunction. I feel that we should refer it to another meeting and see what way the court case goes before the vote is taken. Is that agreed? Agreed. The recommendation is that we publish the response from the Department of Justice and that the correspondence from the Department of Justice be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days.
That concludes our consideration of public petitions this afternoon. I invite members of the public to submit petitions via our online portal, which is available at petitions.oireachtas.ie. A petition may be addressed to the Houses of the Oireachtas on a matter of general public concern or interest or an issue of public policy.
Do members have any issues that they wish to raise?
We received a petition about a year and a half ago about unauthorised developments and Waterways Ireland. I was talking to the secretariat about it. Waterways Ireland was asked to come in this month but it does not seem to suit it. We met the Kenyan committee. It is a pity we do not have the same rules and powers as them. They can arrest people, bring them in and make them responsible. I feel that the can has been kicked down the road numerous times. I put questions to Waterways Ireland already at the housing committee.
The petition was about unauthorised developments and Waterways Ireland. I read it here the last time. Waterways Ireland said it was responsible for unauthorised developments. The committee has been asking it to come in and explain but the dates do not suit. We have only three weeks, or three more meetings, left. I am asking if it is possible to write to Waterways Ireland again and give it those three dates to see if it is available. It is disrespectful to the committee. We are not a nasty committee.
I agree. Can we do those dates? Waterways Ireland made clear that it would not be able to come in before the recess but if it is not going to take one of those three dates before the recess, it should come in straight away after the recess.
That is agreed.
On my own behalf, we thank the secretariat every time for the work it does on our behalf. It is much appreciated.
The joint committee adjourned at 2.51 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Thursday, 27 June 2024.