I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Naughton, back to the House.
Air Navigation and Transport Bill 2020: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 74
Question put: "That section 74 stand part of the Bill."
Votáil.
Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?
Senators Gerard P. Craughwell and Sharon Keogan rose.
As fewer than five Members have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 61 the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.
Question declared carried.
NEW SECTIONS
Amendments Nos. a4a and b4a are related. Amendment No. b4a is a logical alternative to amendment No. a4a. Amendments Nos. a4a and b4a may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed?
The amendments relate to two different sections, section 75 and section 76. I do not know why they are being discussed together.
That was the grouping the Bills Office gave the Chair. The amendments are alternative proposals.
I do not mind amendments Nos. a4a and b4a being grouped together. I am wondering why amendment No. b4a is not two amendments as opposed to one because there are two distinct and separate items in it.
The amendment is in Senator Doherty's name so I do not know why that is the case either. The Senator submitted it.
What is the Chair proposing with regard to amendment No. a4a?
I suggested that amendments Nos. a4a and b4a be discussed together by agreement and asked if that was agreed. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Amendment No. a4a relates to section 75 and amendment No. b4a relates to section 76.
No, amendment No. b4a also relates to section 75. Amendment No. a4a is a Government amendment and amendment No. b4a has been tabled by Senator Doherty. We have agreed that amendments Nos. a4a and b4a may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. a4a:
"In page 53, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
“Aviation Stakeholders Forum and Licence Holders Charter
75. The Act of 1993 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 65:
“65A.(1) Subject to subsection (2), the company shall, at such times as it may determine, convene a forum, to be known as the Aviation Stakeholders Forum, to foster the maintenance and improvement of aviation safety and to support the development of a positive aviation safety culture within the aviation community.
(2) The company shall, as soon as is practicable after, first, the commencement of section 75 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act 2022 and, second, consultation with aviation stakeholders, by notice published on the company’s website—
(a) specify the number of members of the Forum,
(b) determine the manner by which the members are to be nominated from recognised aviation trade unions and representative bodies, recognised aviation stakeholder groups, certified aviation organisations and other interested parties, and
(c) determine the rules and procedures of the Forum.
(3) The Forum shall meet for the following purposes:
(a) promoting the sharing of best practice aviation safety initiatives;
(b) engaging with the company on matters relating to the regulation of aviation safety in commercial air transport;
(c) the provision of views on proposals for European Union or national regulatory changes in relation to aviation safety;
(d) 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.
(4) The company shall, as soon as is practicable after consultation with the Forum, publish a charter, to be known as the Licence Holders Charter, on the company’s website setting out the standards of engagement that will be undertaken by the company with the holders of licences.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), the reference to standards in that subsection includes a reference to standards relating to the following:
(a) the principle of ‘just culture’ as defined in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No. 376/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation;
(b) general principles and policies relating to enforcement actions undertaken by the company;
(c) the right to a response in writing from the company in relation to any refusal to grant a licence, suspension or revocation of a licence or amendment of a licence;
(d) the right to avail of an appeal mechanism in relation to any refusal to grant a licence, suspension or revocation of a licence or amendment of a licence;
(e) the right to make representations in relation to an enforcement action undertaken by the company;
(f) the general guidance that the company will give to the holders of licences as regards the discharge of their obligations as such holders.
(6) In this section, ‘Forum’ means the Aviation Stakeholders Forum referred to in subsection (1).”.”."
Senators are aware that there has been an extensive dialogue with Senators, the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, and the Irish Air Line Pilots Association, IALPA, on this issue of a forum and licenceholders charter. Have taken the Senators' considered views on board, I am proposing Government amendment No. a4a.
The aviation ecosystem is complex and consists of people who ensure the delivery of a multitude of services required to make the aviation system function safely. To remain focused on the fundamentals of safety, it is important that these voices are heard. This is at the core of the Government amendment in relation to the aviation stakeholders forum. The different voices must be heard and must be part of the conversation.
Government amendment No. a4a provides that the IAA convene an aviation stakeholders forum with broader membership than just licenceholders. The purpose of the aviation stakeholders forum will be to promote the sharing of best practice aviation safety initiatives, engage with the IAA on matters relating to the regulation of aviation safety, elicit views on proposals for EU or national regulatory changes in relation to aviation safety and enable the sharing of aviation lessons learned, best aviation practices, aviation safety performance indicators and the provision of information on specific aviation safety risks.
The Government amendment also requires the IAA to publish a licenceholders charter, setting out the standards of engagement that will be undertaken by the IAA with the holders of licences. The aviation stakeholders forum will provide a means by which any safety-relevant issues can be brought forward for attention and teased out in a consultative and collaborative manner. This includes issues relating to crew peer support programmes, which is important to IALPA. In conclusion, Government amendment No. a4a will address the substantive issues raised by Senators and by IALPA. I therefore hope this proposal can be accepted in the spirit of collaboration and consultation in which it is being made.
Does Senator Doherty want to discuss amendments Nos. a4a or b4a, or both?
My amendment No. b4a is 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.
Bringing this legislation through the House has been a painful experience.
I hope the Senator is not going to make it any more painful.
I will try not to. The IALPA representatives have engaged with us, as have the IAA representatives. To me, IALPA's concerns comprise the premier issue. I want to see its concerns met. The reason I want to see them met is that we have a documented history in this country of pilots making complaints and raising issues of concern, including in respect of health and safety, and of those issues being ignored. We lost four decent, honest, hard-working crew when Rescue 116 went down. The litany of instances of disregard for the experts piloting aircraft should worry all of us.
In considering a licenceholders' forum, we should consider an analogy. In the health service, are surgeons likely to meet everybody in their hospital to discuss issues of concern or issues relating to poor practice or another subject? I do not believe so. One meets at a professional level the people with professional expertise to discuss issues of concern. Therefore, licenceholders should not be diluted in any way with those who are non-licenceholders.
If we wants to set up another forum for a sort of general chat among the entire staff of a particular airline, or a group of airlines, then by all means let us do so. It is probably not a bad idea to have some form of discussion generally about how the organisations operate. However, when we are talking about the guys who sit in the cabin up front flying the aircraft and the engineers who are highly skilled personnel, then these are the people whom we and IALPA want on the licence holders forum.
Nobody is trying to undermine anybody here but I am somewhat concerned and find it hard to understand that the people who drafted this legislation, or who had a massive impact on the drafting of this legislation, the IAA, do not understand or seem not to understand what is being asked of them and of this legislation by IALPA members and experts on the ground. To be honest, the Minister of State has been put in a horrible position trying to defend something that is in indefensible. At the end of the day it is the experts on the ground who need to be listened to, not people who work out of offices or wherever else.
On the issues that have been raised by my colleague, regarding the twice yearly meeting, at least we know when the meetings will take place. The next thing is the members and we know who is going to be there. Going back to my trade union days, one of the most important things in the world is having a name you can go to, somebody who is identifiable and with whom you can raise a concern if you have one. That is why raising the names of the individuals involved in the forum is very important. In addition, from my three and fourpence worth, to avoid industrial disputes and the like, having representation from the trade union group is entirely a valid operation. It ensures concerns are raised on behalf of those who are represented in that room.
On best practice, can we argue about sharing stuff on best practice? I do not believe we can.
On engagement with the company in matters relating to regulation, aviation, safety and commercial air transport, I ask the Minister of State to think back to the Rescue 116 and the engagement that took place with the company, from pilots and crew, that was totally and utterly disregarded and no effort whatsoever made to meet their requirements and ensure better practices were in place. Read the report; the report is very clear on where things were at. What we are talking about here is that pilots and other licence holders have a voice, that that voice is documented and that it is there for everybody to see and for future reference if something goes wrong. Nobody ever wants to be in a position where they can say "I told you so", but in air safety it is something that is really important. All you have to do is take your phone out and look at the app that traces aircraft flying across our skies any day of the week, and there are literally tens of thousands of aircraft in the sky at any given time. All we want is that those flying from Irish airports under Irish flags have the confidence there is a system in place they are feeding into and that they feel comfortable doing so. I am not so sure pilots would feel comfortable in some broad church where we sit down with those who pack suitcases into aircraft and who work as ground crew. We are talking about licence holders, the people whom we trust to keep these machines in the sky and ensure they get from A to B safely, so from that point of view I will be supporting this amendment.
In order that we progress this legislation I ask the Minister of State to accept this amendment so we can move on and get this legislation out of this House, and enacted, because I know people want to see it enacted. I am happy to work with her but, for me, this aspect is an absolute and has to happen.
On Senator Craughwell's last point, enactment of this legislation can be facilitated by him right now and by not calling votes.
I am quite happy to put the questions. That is a matter for the Members.
In the context of the debate on these two amendments, there is a lot of commonality, a shared goal and a collective objective. This week we saw from the documentary on Tuskar Rock that aviation safety is paramount, and I commend everyone who was involved in creating the documentary. In the interests of bringing everyone with us and to bring a shared commonality, and the Minister of State might derail me for my next comment but I do not mean to be confrontational or controversial, is there merit in amalgamating her amendment and Senator Doherty's as a Report Stage amendment? Perhaps the Minister of State will reply that we will bring in regulations and it will be regulated, which will be good, but my only concern is that when, as an example, we abolished the dual mandate, the manner in which the Members of the Oireachtas have been dealt with since is by a meeting with city management or a county manager and his or her team. I would put the question to all of those in this House now, who in many cases were members of a local authority, how often does the meeting take place and how successful is it? I am cognisant of what both the Minister of State and Senator Doherty are trying to achieve, so perhaps we could have a meeting of minds around what both amendments ultimately seek to achieve, which is the same thing, namely, safety and taking on board the concerns of those who work in the aviation sector. I hope we could have an amalgam of the two amendments and a meeting of minds because we are at the same juncture with the same concerns and the same ambition.
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 more user friendly, colloquial language. However, the drafting practice in this jurisdiction, where 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.
That is a quite comprehensive reply to the issues that have been raised.
I thank the Minister of State for her acceptance of certain parts of the amendment but I want to ask some questions about the opposition she has. The Minister of State has rhymed off a very long list of stakeholders there and we could potentially have anything up to 100 people sitting around a large table in a large room, except we might not because we will not compel anybody to come and we will not tell them how many times per year that they possibly should come. I accept that the Minister of State might put that into a future amendment and I am grateful for that. I am concerned and perplexed by the fact that we will have a stakeholders' forum of anything up to 100 different types of organisations, as the Minister of State has indicated. This forum will then determine what the licenceholders charter will be. I am not sure why we would have airline training companies, mechanics or all the groups the Minister of State has detailed involved. That is with the exception of the regulatory experts and the regulatory authority, as they are the people who should determine what the charter for the licenceholders is, not the long list of people the Minister of State wants at the stakeholders' meeting. If the establishment of the forum is all about safety, why are we widening the net so much to people who have no knowledge or expertise whatsoever in the safety of aviation or in the regulation of same? Why would we want them at the table and what purpose will there be in them being at the table? What would their input be to creating the licenceholders charter?
I want to welcome the Minister of State's comments in her reply, especially around her commitment on a minimum number of meetings. That is a positive development. However, I am struck by two points. First, I was alarmed at the suggestion of three months and I do not know why it would take that long. To use an analogy, I could not see Michael O'Leary tolerating a three-month delay. I appreciate where the Minister of State is coming from and what she is saying but surely we could expedite that. Second, if we are dealing with safety only, we do not need 100 groups or whatever. That might be a nominal figure but I ask the Minister of State to give that consideration. The Minister of State deserves credit for the way in which she has been open to what Senator Doherty is trying to achieve in moving forward.
She also deserves credit for dealing with stuff between Committee Stage and Report Stage.
The Minister of State has come quite a distance during the discussions on this Bill. I mention the licenceholders forum and the discrete group of pilots, licensed mechanics and air traffic controllers are the people who are on the front line when there is an accident and whose expertise is questioned at those times. For example, the aircraft technicians record the details of where every nut and bolt that is put into an aircraft was made, when it was made, who made it and all that sort of stuff. These are the key people involved in any air accident. I am a little torn because the list the Minister of State read out is quite extensive and there is some merit in having a wide-ranging discussion on air transport and all that sort of thing but the licenceholders, that discrete group of three, need to have their own forum. They need to have a safe place where they can discuss issues of concern and that safe place needs no other outside bodies to be involved.
We will let the Minister of State respond to those points.
Take your time.
We have been taking our time.
We are entitled to speak so let us not rush things here. The bottom line on it is that pilots will speak to pilots. They will also speak to their engineers and air traffic controllers because those are the three groups that work together and they need their own forum. I welcome the notion that there would be a minimum of two meetings per year because I accept what the Minister of State is saying in that there may be times when you would want to have several meetings when various issues come up. However, I cannot accept that we would go for this wide group. The discrete group of licenceholders is what is required and that is what I will be looking for.
The aviation ecosystem is complex and it consists of a wide range of people to ensure the delivery of a multitude of services to make the aviation system function safely. That is the objective of this forum. It is about aviation safety and those who will be at the table will be able to feed into that and are experts in the area. The purpose of this forum will be to highlight the exact areas that Senators raised and that is why I have put that into this Bill. I have done so to promote the sharing of best practice in aviation safety initiatives; engage with the IAA on matters relating to the regulation of aviation safety; and elicit views on proposals at EU and national level around aviation safety, enabling the sharing of aviation lessons learned, best practices and aviation safety performance indicators. The purpose of this is to ensure the right people are around the table who specialise in aviation safety and who have that collaborative approach. That is why I put the stakeholders' forum into this Bill. I did so to make it more robust and to ensure the commitment is there in primary legislation that this forum will be set up.
On the three-month time period, from my Department's point of view and from my point of view, there will be urgency around this charter. I assure Members of that but they will need time in order to ensure they can collaborate, engage and co-operate. By tying it down to three months it is setting too limited a time, and I say that from engagement with the IAA. Members can be assured that my Department will place a huge focus on that to ensure the charter is published.
Before I bring anyone back in I would like to welcome the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Deputy Catherine Martin, to the Visitors Gallery. It is slightly unusual to have her sitting there, as opposed to sitting where the Minister of State, Deputy Naughton, is sitting. She is welcome to our Visitors Gallery and she is always welcome here. The Minister is with her group from her constituency of Dublin Rathdown.
Our guests are all very welcome and I hope they have a lovely evening and enjoy their visit to Leinster House. We return now to the debate and I call Senator Doherty.
I am confused because I do not think the Minister of State answered the question I asked. I can see why she wants to have a stakeholders forum and I see some merit in getting everybody involved in the entire industry to meet on a regular basis to share whatever they think would improve the industry. However, I do not see how it will work to create a licenceholders charter from that very large body. Will she explain how she envisages it working, including at the first meeting, with 50 different representation bodies, many of which have nothing to do with safety, sitting around the table? What input does she see arising from such a forum that will lead to the creation of a charter?
Following on from what Senator Doherty said, I am long enough around and have worked in enough organisations in my life to know that when there is a very broad church such as the Minister of State is proposing, it is possible to manipulate the way in which a forum works. Interested parties may be brought together in order that the voices of the minority group are drowned out. We are talking about air safety, which requires the input of pilots, who witness near misses every day of the week, engineers, who are responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft, and air traffic controllers, who have the difficult task of ensuring aircraft fly across our skies. The number of aircraft that fly over Ireland every day is astronomical. One need only look to the sky any morning at 7 o'clock or any afternoon from about 3 o'clock onwards. I cannot accept, for example, that cabin crew would have a role in safety at the level we are talking about for licenceholders. I cannot accept ground crew would have a role in discussing the type of air safety we are debating.
Like Senator Doherty, I think the Minister of State's argument about having a wider group is a great idea but not for this critical safety measure. Only the three relevant groups should be involved in that. I hate to go back to this but if the Minister of State had an aviator on her staff, that is what he or she would recommend. This is one of the grave concerns I have about the legislation. That is my position and I will not change it.
I think Senator Craughwell did not mean to suggest people are witnessing near misses every day of the week.
I am sure they are witnessing near misses.
I am sure they witness them occasionally but not every day of the week.
To be fair to the Minister of State, she has gone with the discussion here and I think-----
I agree. I am in the Chair and totally impartial but this has come a long way from where we were.
The Acting Chairperson is impartial. In defence of Senator Doherty, she is raising some legitimate points. I hope that before Report Stage, the Minister of State and her officials will look at some of what the Senator is proposing that can make the legislation better, which is what we are trying to do.
I will bring the Minister of State back in and then I might be able to put the amendment.
To reiterate, the focus of the forum is aviation safety. The groups I mentioned will have an important role to play in that.
In regard to the IAA, it is important to say there is a huge amount of expertise within that body. It has more than 120 safety experts on its staff, including 25 highly experienced pilots with more than 100 years of combined experienced and 25 highly experienced engineers with an aggregated 100 years of experience in all aspects of airworthiness. There are other safety experts as well, including air traffic controllers, air navigation service engineers and experts in aerodrome security, aircraft certification, pilot training and licensing, ground operations, charting, drone regulation, risk management, statistical analysis and aviation medicine. The list goes on. Senators can be assured the focus of the forum is aviation safety and only those who have an interest in that will be on the forum. It is in the interest of the IAA and all of us that it functions well. As I said, the Department will be monitoring the charter and making sure it is published as quickly as possible. We all have the same aim here, which is to ensure we have an effective and collaborative approach to aviation safety.
Agreed.
That is the purpose of this forum and what it will do.
I do not deny or reject anything the Minister of State is saying. However, for the life of me, I cannot understand what a certificate holder, for instance, will bring to the forum that would in any way change the outcome compared with having only pilots, air traffic controllers and mechanics involved. There is such a wide list. I would love to have that list, go through it line by line and have the Minister of State explain to me what each of these people would bring to the table in a forum. We are talking about safety and we have a track record in this country of ignoring pilots and the complaints they raise and the safety issues about which they have concerns. In fairness, I will qualify that by saying I refer specifically to the report on Rescue 116. If one company can do what was done in that instance, others can do the same.
The whole point is to have the input of the experts who are in the air, the experts who make sure the machines are capable of going into the air and the people who monitor those aircraft as they fly from A to B. They are the three critical groups and organisations involved in air safety. All the rest are nice add-ons but they are not involved at the same level. If the Minister of State were to go through the list she read out a few minutes ago and tell me what each group on that list will bring to the table by way of expertise, maybe I could accept this provision. I cannot accept it the way it is and I do not think anybody in their right mind would do so.
I have answered the Senator's question. The focus of this group will be on aviation safety.
With respect to the Minister of State, I got a very vague answer that everybody at the table has some input into safety. We are talking about licenceholders and the IAA is the State agency responsible for regulating them. I cannot for the life of me see how many of the categories of persons the Minister of State listed, with huge respect to them and the role they carry out in the industry, will play any role whatsoever in the forum. In fact, they will serve only to confuse the discussions that will be had at the one, two or whatever number of meetings take place in order to arrive at a licenceholders charter. I am curious as to what will happen after the first meeting, which we envisaged and hoped, and the IAA expected, would lead to the first draft of a charter, which would be a living document that could be revised after every meeting in accordance with different suggestions that are made. We will be here in a couple of years and we will not even have the first charter announced because there will be so many people around the table, most of whom will not have any direct input whatsoever into the regulation of aviation safety in this country.
The Minister of State read out the qualifications of people that are available within the IAA. This legislation is about regulating the IAA. I would hope its people have the qualifications she is talking about but that is not the issue.
The Senator has made his point. Does the Minister of State wish to respond?
To clarify, this Bill is not about regulating the IAA. It is about institutional and structural change, as I have said on previous occasions in this debate. I have answered the question as best I can.
I have heard the Minister of State make that point a number of times.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Burke, Paddy.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lombard, Tim.
- McGahon, John.
- McGreehan, Erin.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Ó Donnghaile, Niall.
- Wall, Mark.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Seán Kyne and Robbie Gallagher; Níl, Senators Gerard P. Craughwell and Victor Boyhan.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment No. b4a not moved.
Government amendment No. c4a:
In page 53, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
“Crew peer support programmes
76. The Act of 1993 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 65:
“65B. (1) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), the company shall, at such times as it may determine, conduct a review of the effectiveness of airline provisions concerning crew peer support programmes.
(b) The company shall, not later than 12 months after the commencement of section 75 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act 2022, conduct a review.
(c) The company shall publish on the company’s website a report on the results of a review.
(d) A review shall 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) In conducting a review, the company shall 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).”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. d4a not moved.
SECTION 75
Question proposed: "That section 75 stand part of the Bill."
I thank the Cathaoirleach for indulging me. The reason I want to speak to the section is that I did not know that amendments Nos. a4a, c4a and d4a were contingent on one another, that is, if one if was passed, another could not be pressed. Having said that, I acknowledge and accept that the Minister of State has moved to include some of the provisions of my amendments in her own amendments on Report Stage.
I want to talk about the section in respect of peer support. I am very concerned about the amendment that has been accepted because it does not do justice to the licence holders for whom the peer support programmes are proposed. These programmes are regulated by EASA across the European Union but are to be stipulated individually in member states. What we are talking about here is transposing the legislation.
The Cathaoirleach might remember that, when we were having this conversation a number of months ago, at various stages we asked the Minister of State who were the expert aviators who gave her advice with regard to responding to these amendments, both from the Opposition and me, all of which were drafted in co-operation with the experts in IALPA. I certainly did not have the temerity to manufacture or draft the amendments myself. My concern arises from correspondence between the Minister of State and me and from the responses to a series of freedom of information requests. It has now become apparent there was no advice, expert or otherwise, sought on responding to the either my amendments or those of the Opposition from anyone other than the officials in the Department.
We have had various debates here on this Bill and on Rescue 116 that have focused on two specific recommendations from the air rescue report which gave the Department specific instructions as regards its deficit of aviation expertise. The Department's response to both recommendations was to say that work was in progress and that it would take on board the suggestions from the air navigation rescue team report. However, to date, we still do not have any expertise within the Department. My concern is I am now aware no experts were consulted in drafting responses to my amendments and those of the Opposition.
The reason this concerns me is that, in the last correspondence between the Minister of State and the union representing the licence holders, she stated with regard to peer support that a pilot may seek support from any person he or she chooses - we had previously raised pilots' lack of ability to go to agencies or airlines other than their own employers - but that she was advised that, if that pilot chooses a peer or person who is not part of their employer-enabled support programme, the privacy protections and safety benefits of the employer scheme mandated by EU regulations and laid down by EASA do not apply. For the life of me, I have absolutely no idea where that idea has come from because it is absolutely and blatantly untrue. It set me thinking that I do not know who the officials or experts in the Department of Transport advising the Minister of State are. It is very clear the advice given to her on that response to a meeting about a peer support programme is wrong. This really undermines the Minister of State's response to these amendments as she has acknowledged she did not seek any advice on them other than from officials within the Department.
I just want to give the Minister of State an opportunity to explain why she did not. Why do we not have aviation experts within the Department despite the authorities responsible for clearing up and investigating accidents telling us and nearly begging us to? On numerous occasions, including today, the Minister of State has stood in this House and told us the experts she sought advice from with regard to this legislation, with the exception of the drafting of the search and rescue amendments, were the 120 safety experts in the Irish Aviation Authority, the 25 engineers and the 25 pilots, all of whom are leading global experts. In actual fact, the responses to these freedom of information requests show that nobody was consulted on the response to the amendments. I would sincerely like to know why these amendments from the Opposition and me were treated any differently from our obligations under the EASA regulations, which we adhered to in the drafting of the rest of this Bill.
To clarify, the general scheme of the Bill was developed by officials in my Department. There was extensive engagement with the two State bodies concerned, namely, the Commission for Aviation Regulation, CAR, and the Irish Aviation Authority, in respect of which section 14 of the Irish Aviation Authority Act 1993 states that, among others, one of the principal objects of the company is "to advise, on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister, the Government, the Minister or another Minister of the Government or any other person in relation to any matter to which a function of the company relates". In essence, the IAA has a statutory responsibility to advise on these matters.
Prior to the publication of this Bill, in addition to the IAA and CAR being consulted, the Department engaged with the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, Cork Airport, Aer Lingus, Ryanair, Airports Council International, Chambers Ireland, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, Fórsa, IALPA, An Taisce and Dublin City University. The Bill also went through pre-legislative scrutiny by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport in 2019.
On the technical expertise that was sought in the drafting of national legislation, expert advice was considered necessary regarding the search and rescue aspect of the Bill and that was sought. I am satisfied, as I said previously, that proper and appropriate consultation took place on the Bill. The Attorney General has also said so and stated that it would have been remiss of the Department not to consult the IAA, given its statutory role under the 1993 Act.
Everything the Minister of State said is true, except that was not what I asked, to be fair. The Minister of State is aware that the FOI request submitted by IALPA during the summer specifically looked for the interactions between the Department and experts with regard to responding to amendments and the drafting of this Bill. The FOI reply shows the extensive interactions between five officials in the Department, officials in the IAA and experts in the agency or organisation the Department seconded to do the work for it. What is very telling is that all that correspondence and interaction with regard to the drafting stopped long before we got to our amendments in this House and did not start again. Who were the experts in the Department who guided and advised the Minister of State, not only in responding to our amendments, but taking them and morphing and drafting them into the Department's own?
As I said, the IAA advised on the amendments. It has the statutory responsibility as outlined in the 1993 Act. The scope of the FOI request included asking what independent experts were consulted. Again, that was expert advice that was received on search and rescue.
We are dancing on the head of a pin here because in previous debates the Minister of State told us the IAA is independent. If it is independent, why was it not included in the response to the FOI? To my mind, the IAA is not independent but is an arm of the State, and the purpose of this legislation is to give governance of the aviation industry to the IAA. We have had this discussion previously, when the Minister of State stated in the Chamber that she had relied on the experts in the IAA to draft legislation for the IAA. We have said that does not make sense to us. It does not stand. The Minister has stated categorically that the IAA is independent but if it is, why is it not mentioned in the FOI reply?
To clarify, the FOI request related to the expert outside advice regarding search and rescue. As I said, the IAA is consulted about the Bill as set out under the 1993 Act.
For the record, the FOI stated that we would like to be provided with all correspondence, meetings, minutes and notes between the Department of Transport and independent technical experts retained by the Department to advise on the Air Navigation and Transport Bill and all amendments. The IAA is either independent or it is not. It cannot be both to suit the purposes of different debates.
The IAA is independent. It was consulted on this Bill in respect of the expert outside advice on search and rescue. That was addressed in the FOI reply because the Department went outside the IAA specifically as regards the area of search and rescue.
The FOI request does not mention "outside" at all. I do not know what "outside" means. We asked for information on the independent experts. The Minister of State has stated on a number of occasions that the IAA, and all the staff we have listed off here, are independent. I will have to go back to the person who submitted the FOI request with me and resubmit it.
The Minister of State talked about the expertise that was available. She spoke specifically about the expertise brought in on the matter of search and rescue. I assume we are talking about the same company we have always spoken about, which is the company from Scotland, Aerossurance. I have repeatedly asked what expertise this company has. The Minister of State and the Minister have written to me and told me that this particular individual, and it is a one-man operation, brings in the expertise that he needs from time to time. I have looked at his balance sheet and there are no debtors and no creditors for three years on those balance sheets. How can someone contract in expertise and not finish up with debtors and creditors? I am seriously concerned. I would like the Minister of State to put on record the expertise this company has because the individual concerned is not a pilot and has not flown search and rescue, SAR. He is advising the Department on search and rescue and is a one-man operation. The only time I have seen a second individual involved was in the most recent report.
The Air Accident Investigation Unit advised and recommended that aviation expertise be brought into the Department and the Irish Coast Guard. Recently, the Department had two tenders out for aviation expertise. It is a little confusing. Was the first tender a mistake and a second tender issued? Have we tendered for two different experts to advise on the search and rescue side of the house? The bottom line is that I am very concerned. We are entering into a situation on the search and rescue side where we are possibly looking at a contract worth €1 billion or €1.5 billion for five helicopters on four bases, whereas our colleagues in the UK got 18 helicopters for 12 bases for €1.6 billion and nobody is prepared to talk about that. I have been kicked from one Department to the next. What expertise and qualifications has that expert to advise the Department on this particular issue?
I will not comment on a live public procurement process. I can, however, assure Senators that I am confident the consultation that took place, and the advices sought and received relating to the drafting of this Bill and in considering the amendments, were appropriate. The Attorney General has also said that the consultation was appropriate. As Senators know, as a regulatory oversight regime, we have to comply with International Aviation Safety Assessment, IASA, and International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, rules. We are subject to regular audit by ICAO and IASA. This provides me with strong assurance that our national regulatory oversight regime is robust and fit for purpose.
Not commenting on a live tender is allowing the Minister of State to pull down the curtain of secrecy over expenditure by this State. The taxpayers of the State will pay for this. We paid through the bloody nose for the last one, we did not get the regulation we should have got and four people have lost their lives. What is the expertise of the individual in question? As far as I am aware, the tender for the expert who is advising on the current process has already closed, which means there is no problem telling us who it is and what expertise that person can bring to the Minister of State to assist her with this legislation and anything else she may wish to do. If that tender is closed, there is nothing preventing the Minister of State from telling us who won it.
I have answered the question.
Question put.
As only one teller has been nominated for the Níl side, I declare the question carried.
Question declared carried.
Section 76 agreed to.
SECTION 77
I move amendment No. 4A:
77 a. In page 55, to delete lines 37 to 41 and substitute the following:
“(2) On an annual basis, and whenever so requested, the Chief Executive or a relevant officer shall account for the performance of the company’s functions to a Committee or both Houses of the Oireachtas and the company shall have regard to any recommendations of such Committee relevant to its functions.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 77 stand part of the Bill."
We have debated this Bill for quite a considerable period of time and I am anxious that it would pass Committee Stage and give us time go back to a critical issue and that is the issue of peer support. I understand how far the Minister has come and all I ask is that we finish the Committee Stage and between now and the Report Stage, that we have an opportunity to engage on the issue of peer support and see if there is any possibility whatsoever for a little movement on it. It is the only issue of concern that is left for me. I appreciate the Minister may find it extremely difficult to move from where she has gone. She has gone a considerable distance but I am anxious that we do not delay the passage of the Bill at Committee Stage any further tonight. I ask the Minister if she would agree with that.
Just to clarify the engagement, is the request to meet with Senator Craughwell in relation to peer support before-----
Before we come to Report Stage.
Before Report Stage. There has been extensive engagement-----
I appreciate that.
There has been months of engagement around peer support and I have moved hugely in terms of accommodating the concerns of Senators and the Irish Air Line Pilots' Association, IALPA. What we all what here is the most robust, workable peer support that everyone has confidence in. I have moved as far as I can in relation to that. If the Senator feels he needs a meeting on this, I have to preface it by saying I have moved as far as I can on this issue. If that is something the Senator would like me to facilitate, I can do that and I will meet him again.
I accept the Mininster's bone fides.
Question put and declared carried.
Section 78 to 102, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 103
Question proposed: "That section 103 stand part of the Bill."
On section 103, there were some concerns about dissolution. There was a concern about splitting staff and different part of the whole operation. Have those been rectified? I do not want to delay the Bill.
I will come back to the Senator directly but all terms and conditions will transfer.
Question put and declared carried.
Sections 104 to 112, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 113
Government amendment No. 5a:
In page 72, line 14, to delete “12” and substitute “3”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 113, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 114 and 115 agreed to.
SCHEDULE 1
Government amendments Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, are related may be discussed together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 74, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
“
|
European Union Regulation |
|
Air Navigation Service Provision |
|
1. Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 |
|
2. Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 |
|
3. Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the organisation and use of the airspace in the single European sky (the airspace Regulation), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 |
|
4. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2150/2005 of 23 December 2005 laying down common rules for the flexible use of airspace |
|
5. Council Regulation (EC) No 219/2007 of 27 February 2007 on the establishment of a Joint Undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/2008 and Council Regulation (EU) No 721/2014 |
|
6. Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down common rules on air traffic flow management, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1006 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2159 |
|
7. Commission Regulation (EU) No 176/2011 of 24 February 2011 on the information to be provided before the establishment and modification of a functional airspace block |
|
8. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1206/2011 of 22 November 2011 laying down requirements on aircraft identification for surveillance for the single European sky, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/587 |
|
9. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 of 22 November 2011 laying down requirements for the performance and the interoperability of surveillance for the single European sky, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1028/2014, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2017/386 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2020/587 |
|
10. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 of 26 September 2012 laying down the common rules of the air and operational provisions regarding services and procedures in air navigation and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2011 and Regulations (EC) No 1265/2007, (EC) No 1794/2006, (EC) No 730/2006, (EC) No 1033/2006 and (EU) No 255/2010, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/340, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/1185, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2017/835, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2020/469, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2020/1177 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2020/886 |
|
11. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1079/2012 of 16 November 2012 laying down requirements for voice channels spacing for the single European sky, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 657/2013, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/2345 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2160 |
|
12. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 of 1 March 2017 laying down common requirements for providers of air traffic management/air navigation services and other air traffic management network functions and their oversight, repealing Regulation (EC) No 482/2008, Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1034/2011, (EU) No 1035/2011 and (EU) 2016/1377 and amending Regulation (EU) No 677/2011, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2020/469 amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2020/1177 |
|
13. Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1087 |
|
14. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/123 of 24 January 2019 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of air traffic management (ATM) network functions and repealing Commission Regulation (EU) No. 677/2011 |
|
Air Navigation Communications |
|
15. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006 of 4 July 2006 laying down the requirements on procedures for flight plans in the pre-flight phase for the single European sky, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 428/2013, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2120 and Commission Implementing Regulation No (EU) 2018/139 |
|
16. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1032/2006 of 6 July 2006 laying down requirements for automatic systems for the exchange of flight data for the purpose of notification, coordination and transfer of flights between air traffic control units, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 30/2009 |
|
17. Commission Regulation (EC) No 633/2007 of 7 June 2007 laying down requirements for the application of a flight message transfer protocol used for the purpose of notification, coordination and transfer of flights between air traffic control units, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 283/2011 |
|
18. Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 of 16 January 2009 laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/310, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1170 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/208 |
|
19. Commission Regulation (EC) No 262/2009 of 30 March 2009 laying down requirements for the coordinated allocation and use of Mode S interrogator codes for the single European sky, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/2345 |
|
20. Commission Regulation (EU) No 73/2010 of 26 January 2010 laying down requirements on the quality of aeronautical data and aeronautical information for the single European sky, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1029/2014 |
|
21. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1079/2012 of 16 November 2012 laying down requirements for voice channels spacing for the single European sky, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 657/2013, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2345 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2160 |
Section 41 of the Bill provides that the proposed AirNav Ireland may charge for 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. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are technical amendments which bring the referencing of these 21 regulations up to date since the Bill was originally published in December 2020, to ensure consistency with the formal titles as set out in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Section 71 inserts a new section 55A into the Irish Aviation Authority Act 1993, which provides that the IAA is the national competent authority for the purposes of EU regulations set out in Schedule 3 to the Bill. Schedule 3 currently includes 27 such EU regulations relating to air carriers, air navigation, air passengers, airports, aircraft, aviation safety, pilots and cabin crew, security and slot co-ordination.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are technical amendments which bring the referencing of these 27 regulations in Schedule 3 up to date, since the Bill was originally published in December 2020, to ensure consistency with their formal titles as set out in the Official Journal of the European Union. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 also add a further six EU regulations to those currently listed in Schedule 3. These additional EU regulations are numbered 7 to 12 in amendment No. 8 and relate to air navigation, balloons, gliders and unmanned aircraft, confirming and clarifying the IAA's existing responsibility as national competent authority for these roles.
In light of the whole issue around EU scrutiny of legislation, what the Minister of State has read into the record is a very important insertion that we should not just dismiss as technical. It is very technical, but under the guise of the Cathaoirleach's Seanad reform programme, he might give consideration to those regulations being used as part of a wider conversation in the House that ties in with the communication piece around EU regulation, given the timely documentary shown on Monday about Tuskar Rock and given the whole issue of safety. The Minister of State's amendment is a good one.
It is certainly a matter the new committee on EU scrutiny could look at as part of its work.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 74, to delete lines 4 to 44 and in page 75, to delete lines 1 to 47.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
SCHEDULE 2
Government amendment No. 7a:
In page 76, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“Annexe 12 - Search and Rescue (limited to rescue co-ordination centres and rescue sub-centres)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7b:
In page 76, to delete line 18 and substitute the following:
“Annexe 16 - Environmental Protection (other than environmental protection which falls within Volume IV, Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
SCHEDULE 3
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 77, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
|
Aviation Safety |
|
1. Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1087, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 |
|
2. Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2019/2 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2020/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2114 and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2115 |
|
3. 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 800/2013, Commission Regulation (EU) No 71/2014, Commission Regulation (EU) No 83/2014, Commission Regulation (EU) No 379/2014, Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/140, Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/640, Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/1329, Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/2338, Commission Regulation (EU) No 2016/1199, Commission Regulation (EU) No 2017/363, Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/394, Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1042, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1975, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1384, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1387 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2036 |
|
4. Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation, amending Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1321/2007 and (EC) No 1330/2007 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 |
|
5. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1018 of 29 June 2015 laying down a list classifying occurrences in civil aviation to be mandatorily reported according to Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council |
|
6. Commission Regulation (EU) No 452/2014 of 29 April 2014 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations of third country operators pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1158 |
|
7. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 of 26 September 2012 laying down the common rules of the air and operational provisions regarding services and procedures in air navigation and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2011 and Regulations (EC) No 1265/2007, (EC) No 1794/2006, (EC) No 730/2006, (EC) No 1033/2006 and (EU) No 255/2010, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/340, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1185, Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/835, Commission Implementing Regulation 2020/469, amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1177 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/886 |
|
8. Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/395 of 13 March 2018 laying down detailed rules for the operation of balloons as well as for the flight crew licensing for balloons pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/357 |
|
9. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1976 of 14 December 2018 laying down detailed rules for the operation of sailplanes as well as for the flight crew licensing for sailplanes pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/358 |
|
10. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1048 of 18 July 2018 laying down airspace usage requirements and operating procedures concerning performance-based navigation |
|
11. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/639, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/746 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1166 |
|
12. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 of 12 March 2019 on unmanned aircraft systems and on third-country operators of unmanned aircraft systems, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1058 |
|
13. Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the Parliament and of the Council |
|
14. Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the Parliament and of the Council |
|
15. Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the organisation and use of the airspace in the single European sky (the airspace Regulation), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the Parliament and of the Council |
|
16. Commission Regulation (EU) No 1332/2011 of 16 December 2011 laying down common airspace usage requirements and operating procedures for airborne collision avoidance, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/583 |
|
17. Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/340 of 20 February 2015 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures relating to air traffic controllers’ licences and certificates pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 and repealing Commission Regulation (EU) No 805/2011 |
|
18. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 of 1 March 2017 laying down common requirements for providers of air traffic management/air navigation services and other air traffic management network functions and their oversight, repealing Regulation (EC) No 482/2008, Implementing Regulations (EU) No. 1034/2011, (EU) No 1035/2011 and (EU) 2016/1377 and amending Regulation (EU) No 677/2011, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/469 amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1177 |
|
19. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 of 11 February 2019 laying down a performance and charging scheme in the single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 390/2013 and (EU) No 391/2013 |
|
Air Passengers |
|
20. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air, and corrected by Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 |
|
Aerodromes |
|
21. Commission Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 of 12 February 2014 laying down requirements and administrative procedures related to aerodromes pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/161, Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/401 and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2148 |
|
Airworthiness |
|
22. Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 of 3 August 2012 laying down implementing rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production organisations (recast), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 7/2013, Commission Regulation (EU) No 69/2014, Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1039, Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/5, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/897, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/570, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/699 and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1088 |
|
23. Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 of 26 November 2014 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/1088, Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/1536, Commission Regulation (EU) No 2017/334, Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/750, Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1142, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1383, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1384, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/270, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1159, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/685 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/700 |
|
24. Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/640 of 23 April 2015 on additional airworthiness specifications for a given type of operations and amending Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/133, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1159 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/97 |
|
Administrative Procedures for Aviation Safety |
|
25. Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1899/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council, Regulation (EC) No 1900/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council, Commission Regulation (EC) No 8/2008 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 859/2008 |
|
26. Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2016/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 290/2012, Commission Regulation (EU) No 70/2014, Commission Regulation (EU) No 245/2014, Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/445, Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/539, Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1065, Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1119, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1974, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/27, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/430, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1747, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/359, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/723, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2193 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1310 |
|
27. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/723 of 4 March 2020 laying down detailed rules with regard to the acceptance of third-country certification of pilots and amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 |
|
Aviation Security |
|
28. Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 2320/2002, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 18/2010 |
|
29. Commission Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 of 2 April 2009 supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security laid down in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 297/2010, Commission Regulation (EU) No 720/2011, Commission Regulation (EU) No 1141/2011 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 245/2013 |
|
30. Commission Regulation (EU) No 72/2010 of 26 January 2010 laying down procedures for conducting Commission inspections in the field of aviation security, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/472 |
|
31. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 of 5 November 2015 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2426, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/815, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/837, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/55, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/103, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/413, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/111, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/910 and Commission Implementing Regulation 2021/255 |
|
32. Commission Regulation (EU) No 1254/2009 of 18 December 2009 setting criteria to allow Member States to derogate from the common basic standards on civil aviation security and to adopt alternative security measures, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/2096 |
|
33. Commission Regulation (EC) 748/2009 of 5 August 2009 on the list of aircraft operators which performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 82/2010, Commission Regulation (EU) No 115/2011, Commission Regulation (EU) No. 394/2011, Commission Regulation (EU) No 100/2012, Commission Regulation (EU) No 109/2013, Commission Regulation (EU) No 815/2013, Commission Regulation (EU) No 100/2014, Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/180, Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/282, Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/294, Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/336, Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/225, Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/226, Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/535 and Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/66 |
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 77, to delete lines 5 to 45 and to delete pages 78 to 80.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SCHEDULE
Amendment No. 10 cannot be moved, and was already discussed with amendment No. 4.
I have two additional technical amendments that I propose to bring on Report Stage. The first is an amendment to section 14 to clarify the sequencing of steps between the commencement of and the vesting of IANS or AirNav Ireland. The second is an amendment to section 19 to delete provisions which replicate provisions in the 1993 Act, which are no longer relevant.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Next Tuesday.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 18 October 2022.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow morning at 10.30 a.m.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 7.55 p.m. go dtí 10.30 a.m., Déardaoin, 13 Deireadh Fómhair 2022.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 12 October 2022.