Senator Gerard Craughwell- speech from 16 Jun 2022

I thank Senator Baltimore for his input. Now, the visit to Shannon had nothing to do with the points are that Senator Crockwell, before we go any further, this particular amendment is to do with the licence holders forum. I am quite happy to let anybody contribute on that. That is what we are dealing with at the moment. I am sorry, but a number of things have happened since we were last in this House discussing this bill and they need to be cleared up before we go any further. With respect to Senator Baltimore, of course the air traffic control people were excellent, but we are separating them out. That is part of what is happening in this bill. I do not have a problem with what takes place in Shannon at all, it was highly expert. There are two things that are troubling me today. The first of those two things is that I was approached by the very organisation that we are writing legislation to legislate on, approached me to lobby me to have this bill passed. Now, the air accident investigation unit have instructed or recommended to the minister that the minister separates out everybody and has their own independent aviation experts. That recommendation was made on the 5th of November 2021. The expert is not the Irish Aviation Authority, it is them we are trying to regulate. One of the key things from this report was the lack of oversight by the Department of Transport of the Irish Aviation Authority. Whether we like it or don't like it, that is the key issue from the air accident investigation unit. Another recommendation, the minister for transport shall institute a detailed review of the IAA regulatory and oversight mechanisms to ensure that they are sufficiently robust and comprehensive and that the interface and delineation of responsibilities are clearly defined and understood by the IAA and the entities it regulates. Now, it is the job of the Department of the Department of Transport to regulate the IAA. It is the job of the IAA to regulate the industry. You cannot have collusion between the department and the Irish Aviation Authority in order to pass this bill. I asked at the outset who in the department is a qualified aviation expert that is advising the minister. I do not accept that the Irish Aviation Authority, who will be regulated by this bill, can advise the minister on anything to do with the bill. That is not the function of the Irish Aviation Authority. At the end of the day, the legislation that we are passing here, and there is good legislation here, so there is, and legislation that is needed. But the point behind the entire thing, if we go back and look at the debacle that led to Rescue 116 and four brave people being lost in County Mayo at Blackrock, they were lost because of a number of failings. Those failings were right across from the department to everybody involved in aviation. Everybody. The minister was not in that position at that time, and she holds no responsibility for that. I am sorry that this bill is taking as long as it is to go through this House. Minister, surely you can see the point being made by the Air Accident Investigation Unit. You should have your own independent aviation advice. I ask you again, is there an aviation expert on your staff in the Department of Transport? The things you talk about, Senator Buttermore, the things Senator Buttermore referred to with respect to experiential learning and experience with respect to drafting legislation. I do not doubt any of those things. I do not doubt any of them. What I do have a problem with is that we had an accident that cost four people their lives. Following on from that accident, 44 recommendations were made. Two of those recommendations I have just addressed this morning. I am deeply uncomfortable at the fact that I was lobbied by the organisation we are trying to regulate in order to get this bill passed. Am I alone in this? Am I the only person in this room that sees something wrong with that? I am not having a rub. Surely for any bill, if we are to be lobbied by whoever, it is about informing us of a position, whether you are yea or nay. I met IBEC this morning for a briefing. Are we saying that IBEC cannot lobby us before the budget or the INTO yesterday or force or SIPTU or whoever? I do not know. Okay, thanks Senator Buttermore. Now I have Senator Doherty, Senator Boylan, Senator Dooley and Senator Crockwell. You can resume, then Senator Doherty, Senator Boylan, Senator Dooley and then the Minister. The Minister does want to come in after you Senator Crockwell and I will let her in. Well that is fine. Just to address the point that Senator Buttermore made, IBEC may have spoken to you this morning and lobbied you, but they are not advising the relevant Minister on what they want to do. They may have input to the Minister, but they are not advising the Minister. But we asked for it to be in the Gavish aviation authority. Is that who you are referring to? No, no. We asked for it in the Chair. I am sorry, Senator Buttermore, to the Chair. I am allowing Senator Crockwell to speak and when he finishes, I am going to bring in the Minister and I will let you come in back in. I did not understand his point, but now that I know that is the point. I am going back to the air accident investigation report. The Minister for Transport shall ensure that the Department has sufficient specialist aviation expertise to enable it to discharge effectively oversight of the full range of IAA activities. This legislation is about oversight of the IAA. Who is the expert in the department? Who is the aviation expert in the department that is advising the Minister? When was that person employed? I am allowing the Minister to respond to your point. When was that person employed and how long have they been working in aviation? Senator Crockwell. I welcome Senator Crawford saying that this legislation is good legislation and it is important. That is why I am here today, back here in the Sianna today, after a delay in getting what is absolutely best practice legislation through for Ireland. In relation to engagement on this bill, and that is why I am here today to talk to these two amendments, Amendment 1 and Amendment 2, there has been significant engagement. What I want to do here today, Senator Crawford and indeed all colleagues here, is to go through the amendments and to talk through concerns that Senators have. That is exactly my role here. I have made significant changes to this legislation, if you will permit me here today to address it, talk through these amendments with you all, and I think that will be important. In relation to you talk about expertise, the 1993 Act, Section 14 of that requires the IAA to provide advice to the Minister. In relation to the aviation section of the department, there is significant regulatory expertise. The Air Accident Investigation Unit also has technical expertise and the department also can contract technical expertise as required within the department. But I just want to say, Cahirlec, it is really important that we deal with the issues here today, talk through them, debate them. I want to hear Senator's views here today. That is what we want to do, to put forward the best legislation. And that is what I am here to do today. If there is any other issues, you can raise them in commencement debates or separate debates. But what I want to do now, today, is to get this legislation through as quickly as possible, but obviously respecting the views of Senators here, of all parties, and to debate that. That is my role. Thank you, Minister. That is what I am making myself available today to do. So I would love to go back to the legislation at hand, Cahirlec, and I would ask you to try and assist us all in that. Thank you, Minister. I am doing my very best in that regard. I know that. I know that you are very familiar with the workings of this. Thank you, Cahirlec. Okay, so we can accept there is not an aviation expert within the department right now, and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that, because I think this is important as this legislation progresses, that we are dealing with a department that does not have the expertise to oversee the organisation that we are legislating for. Leaving that aside now, and I would like confirmation of that in the Minister's reply, I too have met with the IAA and DIALPA, and I have spoken to several other people, and a number of people have raised the concerns with me that I have raised this morning. So from that point of view, it is rather odd that we are legislating here for a department that does not have an expert in the area we are legislating in. I agree with Senator Dooley's point that we should have proper processes in place, we should have proper auditing in place, but the people to do that are aviation experts, surely. And we find ourselves at odds with the department and with the Minister in parts of this legislation, and we find ourselves at odds because we have been advised by expert aviators, the people who fly the aircraft. I want to know, when I board an aircraft in Dublin airport, that I have a good chance of arriving where I want to go. I want strong legislation, and this legislation is strong. We are down to a number of small areas that are delaying this legislation, but Senator Boylan made the point that later on we will be discussing a government amendment which is close to section 59 that we are now discussing. But I will be pressing this amendment when the time comes, because I do believe it encompasses everything the expert pilots want. There is no expert from the department who can tell me that what the pilots want is wrong. So it is the experts that fly the aircraft. I will put the question as soon as possible. I will let Senator Doherty in. One of the things that gives us all great confidence when we go to fly is the level of safety that already exists in the world of aviation. If you look through the air accident investigation reports on any air accident, the level of detail that is available is just incredible. Every aircraft that flies, if a part is replaced and not the part is, you can trace it back to the machine it was made on. That is what gives us confidence. I have no difficulty with the Aviation Authority briefing us at all. Indeed they have a statutory obligation to advise the minister, but I am not sure that that statutory obligation to advise the minister goes as far as telling the minister how to write legislation or what legislation should be written. I do believe that the amendments we have here will do two things. One, it will ensure that meetings take place and are scheduled and two, it will provide us with written reports that hopefully the public will have access to and it will overall increase the level of confidence that we have in the aviation industry. I am asking the minister to look at it from that perspective. As somebody who flies herself, that you can have confidence that you will be able to sit down, you know that the licence holders meet on a regular basis, that their issues are taken on board and that the minutes of those meetings are available and that we can have confidence that the system is going right. I accept the bona fides of Captain Jim Gavin, but Captain Jim Gavin may go tomorrow to another job and who will take over and the commitment given by Captain Jim Gavin is no longer relevant. That is why we look for it in legislation and if we get it in legislation then we are sure it will always happen. It has been said that if they applied the same system in an operating theatre as they do to aviation, fewer people would die. So I am asking that we take both of these amendments in the best possible faith and allow us to progress the rest of this legislation. Thank you, Cahirlik. I am going to get into some of the other details after Cahirlik, so just bear with me. I cannot accept amendments one or two. Amendments one and two are as proposed, are not acceptable as drafted. They risk infringing on the independence and flexibility of action of the IAA as regulator and contain a level of specifics and detail that are not appropriate in primary legislation. However, as senators are aware, there has been extensive dialogue with senators, the IAA and the pilots union, IALPA, on these and other amendments. Having taken your views on board, I am today proposing a Government Amendment 4A which I hope addresses the concerns raised in respect of the establishment of a forum and licence holders charter. I understand that this amendment will be discussed in a later group, along with Senator Doherty's related amendment B4A. With your permission, I might just address some of those questions now, if that is permissible. Thank you, because it may give clarity to senators. In relation to the Government Amendment 4A, it provides for the IAA to convene an Aviation Stakeholders Forum with broader membership than licence holders. 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 regulation of aviation safety, elicit views on proposals for EU and national regulatory changes in relation to aviation safety. Also, it will 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 that the IAA will publish a licence holders charter setting out the standards of engagement that will be undertaken by the IAA with the holders of the licences. I should point out that the new aviation regulator has acknowledged the need to provide a forum and a licence holders charter for the licensing community and is fully committed to the same. Additionally, under section 77 of the bill, whenever requested by a committee of one or both of the Oireachtas, the regulator can be called to account for the performance of the IAA's functions and to have regard to any recommendations made in relation to such, including in relation to these measures. In bringing forward this amendment, I am making very significant concessions in light of these issues being pressed. I think we can both agree that there is no difference in substance between us on these matters. The Aviation Stakeholders Forum will provide a means by which any safety relevant issues can be brought forward for people's attention, teased through in a consultative and collaborative manner. This includes issues relating to crew peer support programmes, which is important to IAA. In conclusion, the Government Amendment 4A will address the substantive issues raised by Senators and IAAPA who feel that in the past their members' voices were not heard by the IAA. I hope that that proposal can be accepted. There is also an issue that came up in relation to the distinction between a licence holders forum and a stakeholders forum. I just want to expand on that because I think it will give clarity in relation to the need for a stakeholders forum. This was a substantive issue raised by Senator Doherty's amendment. It is the distinction between aviation stakeholders as opposed to licence holders. Under EASA, the Regulatory Safety System, that is Regulation 2018 1139 and associated implementing rules, there are a number of identifiable stakeholders. Cutting to the chase on it before I go into the detail of it, a licence holder, that term would cast the membership too narrowly of the forum and it would exclude airlines or airports for example. So a licence holder, so they would be individual pilots, air traffic controllers and aircraft mechanics. Then you have certificate holders, who they are, they are organisations who have been audited and deemed to meet the safety regulatory requirements for example airlines, EU certified airports such as Cork airport, Dublin airport etc. Maintenance providers, approved training organisations, they would all be certified holders. Then you have what is called declared organisations, so there are organisations who make a declaration to the IAA that they comply with specific rules, for example declared training organisations, non-commercial complex aircraft operators, special operations, for example aircraft used for specialised activities such as agriculture or surveying. In addition under national regulation we have other terms also such as permissions and approved organisations and people operating under permits. So by using the expression licence holders form in primary legislation we may be inadvertently limiting the participation to just pilots, air traffic controllers and mechanics with no scope for others who would have an important input and role to make in relation to aviation safety. I have consulted with the IAA and my expectation that the membership of the Aviation Stakeholder Forum would be drawn from recognised aviation trade unions, for example IALPA, FORSA, certified aviation organisations, for example air operator certificate holders, certified airports, approved training organisations, certified maintenance organisations, representative bodies, for example the Federation of Aerospace Enterprises in Ireland, recognised aviation stakeholder groups, for example IATA Airlines, IFALPA, the European Cockpit Association, they are from the pilots association, declared organisations, so they are organisations who make a declaration to the IAA that they comply with specific rules and other interested parties for example the AAIU, Air Nav Ireland and EASA. So as the focus of the forum is on aviation safety, the inclusion of representation from the areas of travel trade, tourism, hotels, passenger rights, it is not envisaged that they would be on this forum. So I hope that gives senators some perspective on this issue and whilst I cannot accept the amendment I will reflect on the points raised by senators in advance of report stage. I know there were questions around the scheduling of meetings, so the government amendment says the IAA determines how often the forum meets, but I will listen to, and having listened to senators, we can look at that in report stage in relation to that. I think they are my main issues. I may have left one or two out. Thank you. Thank you very much. Senator Crockwell, do you want to come in? I do want the minister to answer the question whether or not there are aviation expertise within her department. I want that answer. I will let her actually do that now. I think she wants to come in now and I will just let her do that. You have answered that question a number of times. Yes, I have answered the question in relation to that. I have outlined it at the start. As I say also the Department of Transport have engaged technical expertise when required and do so when required. Also just to say that the Department of Transport are also undertaking a review to the approach in other countries around how they contract technical expertise as well. This is ongoing work, but you can be assured that technical expertise is within the department and they do have access to that. Right. Thank you. Thank you. That has not answered the question. The question is very clear. Do you have an aviation expert on your staff in the Department of Transport, yes or no? I have answered the question. The Department of Transport has access to all the expertise necessary. If you want to deal with the amendments here, we can deal with that. If you want to raise other issues under commencement and have a more robust debate on it, it is not related. I have answered your question. No, you have not. I have answered your question. We have access to all the technical expertise in the Department of Transport. Do you have somebody on staff? Yes, we have. We have expertise within the department in relation to that. Do you have an aviation expert on staff? I have answered the question. The Minister has given you a response, Senator Crockwell. You may not like the response, but the Minister has given you a response. I am sorry, it is not a question whether I like the response or not. It is a question of, we are passing legislation through this House to control them. I have heard the Minister say that she has aviation expertise within the Department. The Air Accident Investigation Report criticises the fact that the Department depends on contractors to provide advice and states clearly that they need to have an in-house expert. Again, I ask, is there an in-house expert in aviation? I thought I heard the Minister say that there was aviation expertise in the Department. No, she said she has access to expertise who are contractors. I am saying an employee of the State. Is there an employee of the State working in the Department of Transport with an aviation expert? I have answered the question a number of times now, and I have been very clear in relation to it. I am not going to repeat it. I would rather deal with the Bill and the substance of these amendments. Thank you, Carheerlough. Getting back to the stakeholders' form that the Minister spoke of, to me, if you were to call a meeting of the stakeholders' form, you would probably need a hotel to accommodate all of the different agencies that have been mentioned. The key thing here is, for example, pilots have concerns about lighting at airports when they are landing and taken off. Pilots have concerns about various other things. You recall the destruction of the Concorde as it took off from Paris Airport, where a piece of metal on the runway apparently punctured the fuel tank and caused that aircraft to be lost. Pilots and their mechanics and the forum we are recommending there in Amendment 1 deals specifically with those at the coalface. I have no difficulty with you setting up a separate stakeholders' form that would allow for much broader discussion, but I do think that the licence holders' forum is a key part of any safety mechanism. I am not going to harp on the lack of expertise in the department, but it would have been good if the Minister had just said, I do not have anybody who is qualified expert in the department. Thank you, Senator Crockwell. Minister, for a final response. Thank you. In relation to the forum, what is required here are people who have expertise in relation to aviation safety. It is for that reason that if we just limit it to licence holders, that would really narrow the membership of that forum. You would exclude, for example, airlines and airports by that terminology. What everyone wants on that forum is to make sure that the right people are at the table. That is leaving it open to the forum and the regulator as well to ensure that those who have the necessary expertise are there and nobody is excluded who should be at the table. It is that term, stakeholders. That is why I outlined, just to give examples, for example, EASA is not a licence holder who would be required to be at that. Recognised trade unions, IALPA and FORSA could attend. Certified aviation organisations, they are like air operator certificate holders. Approved training organisations also would form part of this. Other interested parties, the AAIU, AirNav Ireland and, as I have said, EASA. It is for that reason that the term stakeholders would be more appropriate. Sorry, just in relation to Senator Boylan's point, 5C of the government charter amendment provides the general guidance that the IAA will give to the holders of licences as regards the discharge of their obligations as such holders. Thank you, Minister.