I do not know if the Minister is aware that the European Commissioner for Transport is due in Ireland today or tomorrow to meet the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA. Coincidentally, the meeting of the Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport was cancelled this week. We were due to hear from representatives of the Irish Air Line Pilots' Association, IALPA, but for the second time the meeting was cancelled. There are different arguments as to the reasons for the cancellations. There was some very important evidence to be given by Ryanair pilots to the committee. I know that the media are worried about covering this issue because a lot of advertising revenue is generated by Ryanair, but it is a very serious issue in terms of the level of public interest. We are compromised on the question of aviation safety in this country because of the relationship between the IAA and the airlines it is supposed to regulate.

Given that 700,000 passengers recently faced disruption due to the cancellation of Ryanair flights, the light thrown on the airline's activities in respect of health and safety and the irregular working hours and conditions of pilots, does the Minister think it is important that pilots address the joint committee? Should the outcome of whatever discussions the Commissioner has with the IAA today be made public in the House?

I have very serious and genuine concerns about the protection of the public interest. I am not trying to stir things up, but we need to listen carefully to what the pilots have to say and what they are saying about the regulatory authorities. The chief concern is that the IAA, unlike all other authorities regulating aviation across Europe, was set up on a commercial for-profit basis. It collect charges and other revenue from the very airlines it regulates. It collects most of its revenue from Ryanair. To give an idea of the amount of money involved, last year the IAA made a profit of almost €40 million. Its CEO, Mr. Eamonn Brennan, receives a salary of €344,000 a year. The IAA regulates the safety of the airlines from which it is making money. There is a toxic relationship between the regulatory authority which looks after air safety and the means by which it collects its revenue. As I said, such an arrangement is illegal in many European countries and there are significant implications for the working conditions of the pilots concerned, an issue I will discuss. Is the Minister aware of this relationship? Does he think it compromises the safety of civil aviation in this country? Does he think it is acceptable that the IAA has been established on a profit-making basis which allows it to have what could, at best, be described as a dysfunctional relationship with the airlines it regulates?

I understand the Commissioner is addressing the transport committee. I have no control over the agenda set by the committee.

No doubt there are many issues of concern, not least about what will happen following Brexit and the impact it might have, as well as the safety of passengers. It is my understanding Ryanair flights were disrupted because the safety of passengers was the priority, rather than the commercial interests of the company which were not served by the decisions taken. The company had to put up its hand and admit to its failings. That is an example of regulation working.

On the question of whether regulators in general should be funded by levies imposed on the industries they regulate, it is common practice in the case of most regulatory bodies. The reason for it is that while regulation is important, the general taxpayer should not pay when the industry should pay by way of registration fees for the oversight of services a regulator provides. It is important to the reputation of the industry, which is very clearly set out in the legislation.

The source of the payments in no way compromises the authority's primary commitment to safety. It is accountable to this House and others for how it executes its mandate. It can be called to account at any stage. The use of levies, whether in banking or other regulated sectors, to meet the cost of regulation is a common practice across all jurisdictions.

We have used the model in most of our regulator activities. It has never been shown to compromise in any way the exercise of the statutory obligations of these authorities.

I disagree on that.

I dispute that this is common practice as Ireland has the only aviation authority in Europe using this model. It is possible to separate the authorities that collect revenue from airlines through the taxation system, for example, and the authority that regulates how the airlines operate. This goes to a bigger issue. The Minister states the safety of passengers was at the heart of the cancellations but that is not the case. Pilots are exiting Ryanair in their hundreds because there is a global shortage and the structures used by Ryanair to establish the employment of pilots is illegal elsewhere in Europe. It is highly irregular and is being investigated by two revenue groups in Britain and Germany. The governments in Britain and Germany are investigating pilots who live there for potential tax fraud. Imagine the stress this would put on pilots. There is a complex reason for this as the pilots are forced to be self-employed and their work is traded between various companies. Those companies and the pilots are being investigated. The pilots are also being pressurised to cut down on the use of fuel. It was denied that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport discussed that with the Irish Aviation Authority. This is a can of worms and a dirty game. Somebody is keeping quiet about many injustices and there is much money being made. What the Minister says is not true. This is highly irregular.

If the Deputy at any stage wants to raise questions with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport about legal changes, it is open to her to do so. We have robust labour law in this country to protect workers and robust aviation authorities to protect the safety of passengers. I have seen no evidence of failing on the part of those authorities. If there are failings the Deputy wants to bring to our attention, the Deputy and her party can cross-examine these authorities in committee, where they would be open and accountable as per their statutory mandate.

They do not know the pilots are coming in.

It is part of what we do and part of our business is to hold these authorities to account. I do not do it. The Deputy has the same right and opportunity as everybody else to call in representatives of these authorities and hold them to account. She can put the points and let them answer.

Perhaps somebody could have a word with the Minister, Deputy Ross, and tell him to hold them to account.

It is a robust system of accountability that should be used.

They are not being held to account.