I refer members to the grouping of amendments that was circulated previously for the purposes of the debate.
Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Bill 2018: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 11
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 20, line 11, after "37S" to insert ", paragraph 20C of the Fourth Schedule, and paragraph 17A of the Fifth Schedule,".
This is a minor amendment extending definitions of the Bill to further provisions in the Planning and Development Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 81 to 83, inclusive, 97 and 112 are related. Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 81. Amendments Nos. 81 to 83, inclusive, 97 and 112 will be discussed together.
If it is in order, we will allow whatever debate members want on the group and we can then vote on each of the amendments thereafter.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 20, to delete lines 19 to 37 and substitute the following:
“34B. (1) (a) (i) Where the planning authority receives an application under section 34 for development at the airport, it shall, as soon as is practicable after such receipt—
(I) give a copy of the application to the competent authority, and
(II) enter into consultations with the competent authority for the purposes of giving such assistance as the competent authority may require in order to enable the competent authority, within 4 weeks of the competent authority receiving such copy, to either form the opinion referred to in subparagraph (iii) or to conclude that it is not of that opinion.
(ii) The competent authority shall, where it concludes that it is not of the opinion referred to in subparagraph (iii), as soon as is practicable after it so concludes, give notice in writing of that conclusion to the planning authority.
(iii) The following provisions of this section apply where the competent authority, in considering the application, forms the opinion that the development—
(I) contains a proposal requiring the assessment for the need for a noise-related action, or
(II) indicates that a new operating restriction may be required.
(b) Subsections (1) to (3) of section 9 of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019 shall, with all necessary modifications, apply to the performance by the competent authority of its functions under this section.
(c) Subsections (4) to (7) of section 9 of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019 shall, with all necessary modifications, apply to measures and restrictions referred to in this section as those subsections apply to measures and restrictions referred to in those subsections.
(2) The competent authority shall, as soon as is practicable after it forms the opinion referred to in subsection (1)(a)(iii), give notice in writing to the planning authority of that opinion and the planning authority shall, as soon as is practicable after receiving the notice, consult with the competent authority in relation to, as appropriate, one or more of the following matters:”.
This is an important change highlighted to me by my officials. I understand it was signalled by Deputies Clare Daly and Darragh O'Brien. I thank them for this proposal. I will not accept their exact wording for obvious reasons but I have put forward wording which will achieve the same aim and make the necessary consequential amendments. These amendments provide that when an application for a development to the airport is made to the planning authority, that application will then be provided by the planning authority to the noise regulator. The noise regulator will adjudicate on whether there is a noise dimension in the development application that needs to be assessed under EU Regulation No. 598 in line with the balanced approach. Where the noise regulator makes a determination that an application does fall within Regulation No. 598, the planning authority must wait for the outcome of that assessment before making a final decision on the planning application. Once the noise regulator has completed its work and made a regulatory noise decision following the necessary public consultation, it will inform the planning authority. The planning authority will then be in a position to make a final decision on the development and must adopt the regulatory decision of the noise regulator as planning conditions to the development.
For clarity, is the Minister submitting amendments on Report Stage?
No, I am submitting them now.
Apologies.
We raised this issue following the briefings with departmental officials and there was a gap in the original draft. Previously, the planning authority could decide not to refer an issue to the competent authority and there was no facility for residents or anybody else to say they did not agree with it. If the Minister is saying that the primary decision is now with the competent authority and that the issue must go to it first, as it will decide whether there is a noise-related aspect to any planning application, that is what my amendment seeks to achieve. If the Minister's amendment is doing that, it is a case of happy days. We wanted to ensure this matter was not left at the discretion of the planning authority.
The position the Minister has outlined meets my requirements.
Amendment No. 83 was along similar lines. There was no safeguard for residents as the local authority was under no obligation to refer an issue to the competent authority but that is covered now.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 cannot be moved.
Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 not moved.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 21, line 2, after “assessment” to insert “and health assessment”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 85, 86, 99, 101 and 110 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 22, line 1, to delete “Where this section applies and notwithstanding” and substitute “Notwithstanding”.
The amendments are technical drafting amendments and are intended to provide clarity and simplicity. I would like the committee to note that I will introduce another similar technical drafting amendment on Report Stage to correct a reference in subsection 14(a) on page 25.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 23, line 18, after “discretion)” to insert “having”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 23, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
“(e) the effectiveness of the noise mitigation measures and operating restrictions (if any) is thoroughly evaluated in relation to their impact on human health;”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 23, line 41, to delete “(e) the application” and substitute “(f) the application”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 23, after line 41, to insert the following:
“(f) an assessment of the impact of the decision, and implementation of noise mitigation measures and operating restrictions (if any) on the well-being and health of local residents;”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 24, line 1, to delete “(f) the identification” and substitute “(g) the identification”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 24, line 4, to delete “(g) particulars” and substitute “(h) particulars”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 24, line 6, to delete “(h) if applicable” and substitute “(i) if applicable”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 24, line 8, to delete “(i) the relevant” and substitute “(j) the relevant”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 24, line 11, to delete “(j) a non-technical” and substitute “(k) a non-technical”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 95:
In page 24, line 12, to delete “paragraphs (a) to (i)” and substitute “paragraphs (a) to (j)”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 96 and 111 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 96:
In page 25, line 21, after “authority” to insert “, the elected members of the local authority and Dáil Éireann in whose constituencies the airport is located”.
This is a minor matter. I imagine the Minister and his team will accept the amendment which relates to the notification provisions for the competent authority when it makes a decision to give notice. The Act already provides that the competent authority will give notice to the applicant, persons who makes observations, the local authority and other interested parties. I suggest that councillors and local Oireachtas Members would be notified also. It is a handy provision and would enhance democratic accountability in such important decision making. Given that a range of others are being notified, the addition of ten extra individuals would not be onerous and is desirable.
I am not convinced of the need for this change because of the transparent process we are going through. I am not aware of a precedent for it. I am more than satisfied that the notification requirements set out in the Bill, which mirror those in the planning Acts, are sufficient to ensure that people will be made aware of what is happening. All decisions of the noise regulator will be published on its website and will be available for inspection in its offices. Furthermore, a notice will appear in national newspapers stating that the noise regulator has made a decision and detailing how that decision and any associated report can be accessed. It is also worth noting that any person who participates in the process, that is, any person who made observations or submissions during the public consultation phase, will also be notified directly and in writing by the regulator. I do not think it is essential. This is a very transparent process and it is probably putting another layer in here which is unnecessary. The fact that everything is on the website will mean that members of the local authority should know about it and ought to be alert to it.
With respect, it is not adding another layer but providing for the notification of decisions that have been made, as a matter of course. It is an international airport that is of strategic importance to the State. From experience with dealing with the greater Dublin drainage scheme, for argument's sake, it can be difficult to get updates on a big national infrastructural scheme that concerns residents. That is the case for me as a Deputy, and more so for councillors who have a part-time role, in terms of keeping on top of all such matters. The intention is to provide transparency and the proposed measure would not add anything. Deputy Daly's amendment would mean the five Deputies in Dublin Fingal and those in Dublin West would be notified as well as the 40 local authority members in Fingal County Council. The aim is to ensure that the notification of decisions or applications must be made. That makes sense. We are not looking for a consultation, just notification.
That is fine. I am happy to let the amendment through.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 97:
In page 26, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(c) The planning authority shall make its decision on the application as soon as is practicable after it receives, pursuant to subsection (14)(a)(ii), a copy of the competent authority’s regulatory decision under subsection (13)(a).”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 98:
In page 26, to delete lines 11 to 20 and substitute the following:
“(16) Subject to subsection (17), a noise mitigation measure to be introduced by virtue of a regulatory decision adopted under subsection (13)(a) shall—
(a) if no appeal under section 37 as read with section 37R is made, within the appropriate period referred to in section 37(1), against the planning authority’s decision on the application, come into effect on the expiration of such appropriate period, and
(b) after so coming into effect, remain in effect until revoked, or revoked and replaced, by the competent authority or the appeal body.
(17) The competent authority may, by notice published on its website on the same date as the regulatory decision adopted under subsection (13)(a) is, pursuant to subsection (14)(a), also so published—
(a) defer, for reasons stated in the notice, the coming into effect of a noise mitigation measure to be introduced by virtue of that decision, and
(b) specify the date, or the occurrence of the event, on which such noise mitigation measure shall come into effect.
(18) Subject to section 25(b) of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019, the competent authority shall, in relation to an operating restriction to be introduced by virtue of a regulatory decision adopted under subsection (13)(a), take such steps as it considers appropriate to cause Article 8 of the Aircraft Noise Regulation to be complied with as soon as is practicable after it applies to such restriction.
(19) Subject to subsection (20), an operating restriction referred to in subsection (18) shall—
(a) come into effect on the day immediately following the day on which the operation of Article 8 of the Aircraft Noise Regulation ceases to further prevent the coming into effect of the operating restriction, and
(b) after so coming into effect, remain in effect until revoked, or revoked and replaced, by the competent authority or the appeal body.
(20) The competent authority may, by notice published on its website at any time before the day first-mentioned in subsection (19)(a)—
(a) defer, for reasons stated in the notice, the coming into effect of the operating restriction referred to in subsection (18), and
(b) specify the date, or the occurrence of the event, on which such operating restriction shall come into effect.
(21) Subsection (6) of section 34 shall not apply where the competent authority forms the opinion that a noise problem that would arise from the carrying out of the development as proposed would contravene materially the development plan or local area plan.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 99:
In page 26, to delete lines 31 to 38 and substitute the following:
“(c) Subsections (1) to (3) of section 9 of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019 shall, with all necessary modifications, apply to the performance by the competent authority of its functions under this section.
(d) Subsections (4) to (7) of section 9 of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019 shall, with all necessary modifications, apply to measures and restrictions referred to in this section as those subsections apply to measures and restrictions referred to in those subsections.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 100:
In page 26, line 45, after “assessment” to insert “and health assessment”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 101:
In page 29, line 14, after “discretion)” to insert “having”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 102:
In page 29, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
“(e) the effectiveness of the noise mitigation measures and operating restrictions (if any) is thoroughly evaluated in relation to their impact on human health;”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 103:
In page 29, line 36, to delete “(e) the application” and substitute “(f) the application”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 104:
In page 29, line 37, to delete “(f) the identification” and substitute “(g) the identification”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 105:
In page 29, line 40, to delete “(g) particulars” and substitute “(h) particulars”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 106:
In page 30, line 1, to delete “(h) if applicable” and substitute “(i) if applicable”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 107:
In page 30, line 3, to delete “(i) the relevant” and substitute “(j) the relevant”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 108:
In page 30, line 5, to delete “(j) a non-technical” and substitute “(k) a non-technical”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 109:
In page 30, line 6, to delete “paragraphs (a) to (i)” and substitute “paragraphs (a) to (j)”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 110:
In page 31, line 3, to delete “subsection (12)” and substitute “subsection (11)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 111:
In page 31, line 15, after “authority” to insert “, the elected members of the local authority and Dáil Éireann in whose constituencies the airport is located”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 112:
In page 32, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
“(c) The planning authority shall make its decision on the application as soon as is practicable after it receives, pursuant to subsection (15) (a)(ii), a copy of the competent authority’s regulatory decision under subsection (14)(a).”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 113:
In page 32, to delete lines 9 to 18 and substitute the following:
“(17) Subject to subsection (18), a noise mitigation measure to be introduced by virtue of a regulatory decision adopted under subsection (14)(a) shall—
(a) if no appeal under section 37 as read with section 37R is made, within the appropriate period referred to in section 37(1), against the planning authority’s decision on the application, come into effect on the expiration of such appropriate period, and
(b) after so coming into effect, remain in effect until revoked, or revoked and replaced, by the competent authority or the appeal body.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 114:
In page 32, line 22, after “defer,” to insert “if immediate implementation is not possible”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 115:
In page 32, line 27, to delete “section 25” and substitute “section 25(b)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 116:
In page 32, to delete lines 30 to 32 and substitute “under subsection (14)(a), take such steps as it considers appropriate to cause Article 8”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 117:
In page 33, line 3, after “defer,” to insert “if immediate implementation is not possible”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12
I move amendment No. 118:
In page 34, line 4, to delete “may, at its discretion,” and substitute “shall”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 119:
In page 34, lines 9 and 10, to delete “(other than the planning authority who made the relevant regulatory decision)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 120:
In page 34, to delete lines 15 to 17 and substitute the following:
“(3) (a) Subsections (1) to (3) of section 9 of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019 shall, with all necessary modifications, apply to the Board’s consideration of the relevant appeal as if any reference to the competent authority in those subsections were a reference to the Board.
(b) Subsections (4) to (7) of section 9 of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019 shall, with all necessary modifications, apply to measures and restrictions forming part of the Board’s consideration of the relevant appeal as those subsections apply to measures and restrictions referred to in those subsections.
(c) The Board may, in its decision on the relevant appeal and its related report (subsection (7)(a)), accept or reject all or any part of either or both—
(i) the relevant regulatory decision the subject of the appeal, or
(ii) the report prepared under section 34B(10) and revised under section 34B(13)(b), or prepared under section 34C(11) and revised under section 34C(14)(b), as appropriate, which relates to such relevant regulatory decision.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 121:
In page 34, to delete lines 26 to 30 and substitute the following:
“(b) Subsection (12) of section 9 of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019 shall, with all necessary modifications, apply to the Board and the decision it is minded to make on the relevant appeal as if any reference to the competent authority in that subsection were a reference to the Board and as if any reference in that subsection to the draft regulatory decision were a reference to the decision that the Board is minded to make on the relevant appeal.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 122:
In page 34, lines 40 and 41, to delete “relevant revised report” and substitute “related report (subsection (4)(b))”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 123:
In page 35, line 6, after “decision” to insert “and prepared the related report (subsection (4)(b))”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 124:
In page 35, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“(II) stating particulars of how persons may view or otherwise have access to the draft decision and related report (subsection (4)(b)) (which shall include being able to view the decision or report, or purchase a copy of the decision or report at a reasonable cost, at the offices of the Board during office hours),”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 125:
In page 35, line 7, to delete “(II) inviting persons” and substitute “(III) inviting persons”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 126:
In page 35, line 13, to delete “(III) stating particulars” and substitute “(IV) stating particulars”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 127:
In page 35, to delete lines 41 to 43 and substitute the following:
“(a) publish on its website the first-mentioned decision, in so far as it so relates, to which is annexed a report prepared by the Board in relation to such decision stating the Board’s reasons for such decision and including therein—
(i) such of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (j) of subsection (10) of section 34B or paragraphs (a) to (j) of subsection (11) of section 34C, as the case may be, as are appropriate (which inclusion may be achieved, at the Board’s discretion, by the adoption by it of any part of the report concerned referred to in subsection (3)(c)(ii)), and
(ii) if subsection (4) applies, the related report (subsection (4)(b)) revised by the Board to take into account all documents, submissions or observations (if any), and such other information, given to it pursuant to a provision of this section and to take into account the first-mentioned decision in so far as it so relates,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 128:
In page 36, line 7, after “decision” to insert “(including any annex thereto)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 129:
In page 36, lines 38 to 41, to delete from “(that” in line 38, down to and including “appeal)” in line 41.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 130:
In page 37, line 6, after “defer,” to insert “if immediate implementation is not possible”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 131:
In page 37, line 11, to delete “section 25” and substitute “section 25(b)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 132:
In page 37, lines 14 to 18, to delete from “(that” in line 14, down to and including “decision)” in line 18.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 133:
In page 37, line 33, after “defer,” to insert “if immediate implementation is not possible”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 134:
In page 37, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
“ ‘related report (subsection (4)(b))’ means the report (if any) prepared by the Board pursuant to subsection (4)(b); ‘related report (subsection (7)(a))’ means the report prepared by the Board pursuant to subsection (7)(a);”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 135:
In page 38, to delete lines 1 to 27 and substitute the following:
“Supplementary provisions relating to decisions on applications referred to in section 34B(1) or 34C(1)
37S. (1) (a) This section applies in addition to section 37 in the case of an appeal under section 37 against a decision of the planning authority under section 34 where—
(i) pursuant to section 34B(1)(a), the competent authority concludes that it is not of the opinion referred to in section 34B(1)(a)(iii), or
(ii) pursuant to section 34B(5) or 34C(5), that decision is to refuse the application concerned.
(b) The competent authority shall be a party to the appeal notwithstanding section 34B(5)(d) or 34C(5)(d).
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the Board’s powers under section 37, or under section 37 as read with any other provision of this Act, the Board shall, in determining the appeal—
(a) where subsection (1)(a)(i) applies, take into account such of the provisions of section 34B following subsection (1) of such section 34B, and of section 25(b) (with all necessary modifications) of the
Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019, as are, in the Board’s opinion, relevant to the appeal,
(b) where the refusal referred to in subsection (1)(a)(ii) arises from the operation of section 34B(5), take account of such of the provisions of section 34B following subsection (5) of such section 34B, and of section 25(b) (with all necessary modifications) of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019, as are, in the Board’s opinion, relevant to the appeal, or
(c) where the refusal referred to in subsection (1)(a)(ii) arises from the operation of section 34C(5), take account of such of the provisions of section 34C following subsection (5) of such section 34C, and of section 25(b) (with all necessary modifications) of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019, as are, in the Board’s opinion, relevant to the appeal.
(3) Subsections (1) to (3) of section 9 of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019 shall, with all necessary modifications, apply to—
(a) the Board’s consideration of the appeal in so far as such consideration relates to—
(i) a conclusion referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i), or
(ii) a refusal referred to in subsection (1)(a)(ii), and
(b) the Board’s determination of the appeal in so far as it so relates as referred to in paragraph (a), as if any reference to the competent authority in those subsections (1) to (3) of that section 9 were a reference to the Board.
(4) Subsections (4) to (7) of section 9 of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019 shall, with all necessary modifications, apply to measures and restrictions forming part of the Board’s consideration of the appeal as those subsections apply to measures and restrictions referred to in those subsections.
(5) Subsection (12) of section 9 of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019 shall, with all necessary modifications, apply to—
(a) the Board and the decision it is minded to make on the appeal in so far as such decision relates to—
(i) a conclusion referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i), or
(ii) a refusal referred to in subsection (1)(a)(ii), and
(b) the Board’s determination of the appeal in so far as it so relates as referred to in paragraph (a), as if any reference to the competent authority in such subsection (12) were a reference to the Board and as if any reference in such subsection (12) to the draft regulatory decision were a reference to the decision that the Board is minded to make on such appeal.”.”.
The Bill, as it stands, sets out the process to be followed by An Bord Pleanála in considering an appeal in respect of a planning decision where a development has been refused by the planning authority on the advice of the noise regulator due to insufficient information regarding noise impact. This amendment provides for a second scenario which strengthens the hand of An Bord Pleanála. I am advised that it stems from a suggestion from Deputy Darragh O'Brien in discussions with my officials and I wish to acknowledge his contribution on this. With this amendment, steps are set out for circumstances where the noise regulator decides, in the context of section 11, that a development proposal does not require a noise assessment. In such a scenario, the noise regulator informs the planning authority that a development does not have a noise impact that would warrant assessment under Regulation 598/14. The planning authority then moves through the planning process and makes a planning decision. Where the planning decision is subsequently appealed, this amendment provides for the board, in considering the appeal, to have the power to undertake the balanced approach process itself where it believes there will be a significant impact to the noise climate around the airport, contrary to the views of the noise regulator. The board will have all of the normal powers of the noise regulator in these circumstances.
Could the Minister repeat his two final sentences?
I will reread the final paragraph.
Yes, please.
Where the planning decision is subsequently appealed, this amendment provides for the board, in considering the appeal, to have the power to undertake the balanced approach process itself where it believes there will be a significant impact to the noise climate around the airport, contrary to the views of the noise regulator. The board will have all of the normal powers of the noise regulator in these circumstances.
I thank the Minister and his officials. We discussed this matter at length. The amendment will strengthen the role of An Bord Pleanála in the process. It will also allow communities and individuals to appeal to An Bord Pleanála, regardless of whether the noise regulator has made a determination that communities may not be affected by noise. This section will allow the board to have a greater say and, through the board, local communities will also have a much greater say. This strengthens the independence of the legislation. I thank the Minister and his officials for listening to the views we expressed on this matter. The amendment goes some way towards meeting our concerns.
I was going to ask a question but I think I am okay.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 16
I move amendment No. 136:
In page 39, to delete lines 21 to 23 and substitute the following:
“ “20C. The proposed development would cause a serious aircraft noise problem at Dublin Airport including, as appropriate, the area around Dublin Airport significantly affected by aircraft noise.”.”.
This amendment is making it clear that, should a development be refused by An Bord Pleanála on the grounds that it would cause a serious noise problem at Dublin Airport, refusal for such a reason is non-compensatable. It also makes it clear that any condition attached to a planning consent relating to measures for the regulation of aircraft noise at Dublin Airport is similarly non-compensatable.
To clarify, is the Minister stating that if a development is allowed to go ahead and is then deemed to be causing noise problems there would be no compensation?
Yes. If a development is refused on the grounds of noise, it is non-compensatable.
That is if it is refused.
Yes, that is the basis of the amendment.
That is fine.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 17
I move amendment No. 137:
In page 39, to delete lines 27 and 28 and substitute the following:
“ “17A. Any conditions relating to measures for the regulation of aircraft noise at Dublin Airport including, as appropriate, the area around Dublin Airport significantly affected by aircraft noise.”.”.
This amendment makes it clear that any condition attached to a planning consent relating to measures for the regulation of aircraft noise at Dublin Airport is similarly non-compensatable.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 138:
In page 41, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
Noise Insulation Scheme
“20. (1) The airport authority shall—
(a) expand the existent noise insulation scheme to all homes affected by any and all flight paths into the airport, including those created by any future developments at the airport, and
(b) consult local community groups and elected members fully on the design and implementation of the aforementioned noise insulation scheme.
(2) The competent authority shall be responsible for evaluating the design and implementation of the airport authority’s noise insulation scheme, with a view to ensuring maximum benefit for local residents. This evaluation shall be prepared and
published periodically. The competent authority must publish an evaluation immediately following the design of a new noise insulation scheme, and no later than 1 year following the commencement of the new scheme. This evaluation shall
consider—
(a) the efficacy and suitability of the noise insulation measures proposed by the noise
insulation scheme,
(b) the ease with which residents can access the noise insulation scheme, and
(c) the experience by local residents of the noise regulation scheme.
(3) The competent authority shall provide an appeals mechanism to local residents who raise complaints or concerns regarding the noise insulation scheme.”.
This amendment will effectively give the airport noise authority the role of overseeing the noise insulation scheme. The Minister will know from meeting residents that the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, currently controls who is included in or excluded from noise insulation schemes and how expansive such schemes are.
I met the Minister's officials earlier today and it was a very useful meeting. The early part of the definition in No. 20(1)(a) is to: "expand the existent noise insulation scheme to all homes affected by any and all flight paths into the airport, including those created by any future developments at the airport". I know that we may have to look at improving on that definition and I say that on the basis that if the odd plane was flying over Rathmines on the way in or something such as that, it is not my intention to have that included, my intention is to look at the communities that are directly affected by the existing runway and those that would be affected by the second parallel runway when that is built because I have had lengthy discussions with the DAA about the need to expand that. This amendment, therefore, would provide under section 2 of the amendment that: "The competent authority shall be responsible for evaluating the design and implementation of the airport authority’s noise insulation scheme, with a view to ensuring maximum benefit for local residents." It is about the balanced approach and it is about looking for an evaluation of the existing scheme that is there but the competent authority would decide on what areas should or should not be included.
This amendment strengthens the Bill and I look towards the independence of the new noise regulator as well because it will remove the full responsibility for making a decision from the DAA. It will not be just the DAA deciding who is in or who is out. When we have an airport noise authority, that makes a lot of sense and there should be an appeals mechanism for local residents to raise complaints on the noise insulation scheme. The noise regulator would effectively become the independent arbiter, which makes sense. That is what we want it to do and I am asking it to take over the responsibility for deciding the extent of the noise insulation scheme. We can work on more of the detail of that on Report Stage. There is a bit of an imperfection, unintended as it might be, in No. 20(1)(a) and I agree that we need to tweak that. I do not want the whole east coast taken into the scheme because then we will not have the resources to deal with the areas that are most affected.
My officials met Deputy Darragh O'Brien earlier today on this issue and they were impressed. When they presented me with the arguments the Deputy had presented them with, I felt that they had some merit. There are obviously one or two difficulties in the way this is framed but there is an opportunity for a discussion between now and Report Stage which will accommodate what Deputies Darragh O'Brien, Clare Daly and Brendan Ryan want as well, without in any way impacting adversely on the Bill.
I understand the Deputy's concerns for local residents and noise insulation is clearly a proven measure to offset the impact of noise. While I am of the view that this amendment, as currently framed, is not a workable solution, I am prepared to look at what can be done on Report Stage to address the concerns the Deputy has and to honour the intention of his proposed amendment.
It is important to recognise that the Bill provides full legal powers for the new noise regulator to include any and all noise mitigation measures as it sees fit, in order to reduce the impact of aircraft noise at Dublin Airport. This includes home insulation schemes, which would be introduced based on a detailed noise assessment at the airport that would determine who is affected by aircraft noise and to what degree. It is the regulator's noise assessment, which we should remember will be the subject of full public consultation, that will make sure that those most affected would be protected. I accept that it is for the future and that the Deputy is concerned about the present. While I have every confidence that the Bill allows for the regulator to take into account current schemes in any future regulatory decision and incorporate any additions or improvements to those schemes' example, I will see if there is a way of making that more explicit on Report Stage.
There is an important point to be made about the regulatory framework that we are providing here and there are a number of amendments before us today which reinforce this point. Simply put, if the DAA does not comply with a noise regulator decision, the regulator has strong enforcement powers and if the decision of the regulator is deemed insufficient, then that can be appealed to An Bord Pleanála and the board has sweeping powers within this Bill to look at any and all matters again in full.
The Minister's positive response is to be welcomed. We obviously have a bit of work to do between now and Report Stage but it is probably better to pass it now on Committee Stage and do that work in the meantime. We do not just have to work on this but there are a number of aspects to the Bill where with a bit of dialogue and behind the scenes work, we can cut down on the number of amendments on Report Stage. It is true that the competent authority has the power to deal with this but it is sufficiently important to have this grounded in the Statute Book anyway, particularly when we all know that the DAA's intention is to use this legislation to attempt to lift the night noise restrictions. We have to be clear that one of the reasons the present noise insulation scheme is so limited and ineffective is precisely because there was a protection provided by the night noise restrictions and any loosening of one will necessarily require a much bigger investment in insulation and so on. It is important and it is in line with the balanced approach.
I like section 3 of the amendment, particularly the idea of the residents having access to an appeals mechanism around the noise insulation scheme. I know that there is an overall appeals process within An Bord Pleanála but that does not negate a separate and easily utilised mechanism around insulation which residents can access because as the airport grows the scheme will have to be accessed more readily. Having that grounded in the Statute Book is a good thing in that regard. It is good that there has been some progress and we need to make more progress between now and Report Stage.
I welcome the Minister's commitment to address this. It is important that the noise insulation scheme is included in this legislation in some way and that it is not the sole responsibility of the DAA to deal with this. It has to be linked in and there have to be appeals to the competent authority so I welcome this and the Minister's commitment to address it on Report Stage.
I welcome the Minister's response and the engagement with his officials today. I drafted this amendment in consultation with local residents and by having the noise insulation scheme in the primary legislation shows the importance of it and into the future it will play a role in how the airport develops. I am more than happy to work to improve the first definition in particular between now and Report Stage. It is also very important that one could appeal directly to the authority as opposed to going all the way to An Bord Pleanála. As I explained to the Minister's officials today, I would like to see this amendment go in now and we can work to change it, to amend it slightly and to make sure the definition is better on Report Stage before this Bill is passed. I very much appreciate the engagement and the Minister's positive response. I will still press the amendment in the spirit of co-operation because I would like to see us work together to change it further on Report Stage to tighten up on the definition.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Amendment put and declared carried.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22
I move amendment No. 139:
In page 42, to delete lines 28 to 38, and in page 43, to delete lines 1 to 10 and substitute the following:
“(4) The competent authority may impose a financial penalty of 10 per cent of the cost of compliance for failure to comply with a relevant provision, or €1,000 for each breach, whichever is higher.”.
I would like this to be discussed. I am not sure about it and it is certainly inadequately drafted by me in its present form but I will explain the idea behind it and we will see what we can do between now and Report Stage.
This is the section that deals with the issue of enforcement notices. We are obviously talking about an enforcement notice being served primarily on the DAA, which is a massive institution. The idea that it would ignore an enforcement notice is abhorrent and it would be outrageous for that to happen.
The State needs to have some meaty mechanism if that is to arise. This legislation proposes that the authority can be brought to the High Court. However, bringing the DAA to the High Court would take forever, and all the while a noise enforcement notice which had been issued could be ignored. Organisations like the DAA have unlimited resources and can draw out High Court proceedings for a long time while residents would be left unable to have their rights enforced. That is a problem. What I am trying to do with the amendment is provide for more ready and immediate financial penalties to strengthen the hand of the competent authority to enforce compliance. That is the theory behind it. The wording is poor because I was trying to cover many broad issues.
How do we put a cost on this? Manchester Airport imposes financial penalties. It has a clause under which it charges £750 for every decibel by which an aircraft exceeds the noise limit. I used a figure of €1,000 and did not even provide that this would apply for each additional decibel. As such, it is inadequate. That was one option that I had. Obviously, if we are talking about a major development and the DAA did not implement a measure costing hundreds of thousands of euro, a fine of €1,000 would be ridiculous. I accept that the amendment is not drafted properly. However, the principle of having some accessible, immediate financial or other penalties to bring the DAA to heel is necessary. I would like to know what the officials think. I will not press the amendment today but I want to discuss it in order that I can come back with something better.
I am not inclined to accept the amendment for a number of reasons. The Deputy said there would be a delay in the High Court. Under a provision we will discuss later, the High Court can expedite proceedings in such cases where it considers it necessary or important to do so. I do not anticipate circumstances in which the DAA would defy an enforcement order. It would be extraordinary if that were to happen. I know it is a strange and powerful creature but it would be very odd for the DAA to defy an enforcement order from an authority of the State. That would be very rare indeed, although perhaps would happen. There is certainly a need for enforcement. It is a matter of how an order is applied and ensuring that it is applied speedily and effectively and is a deterrent. I am not sure €1,000 for each breach would be a deterrent but we will see.
This provision concerns the relationship between the regulator and the regulated entity, namely, the DAA. I am fully in agreement with the Deputy on the need to have strong and robust enforcement measures. Section 22 provides power to the noise regulator to direct the airport authority or an airport user to undertake actions in order to comply with a noise mitigating measure or an operating restriction. The section gives the very enforcement powers around noise to Fingal County Council that have been highlighted as a deficiency in the current noise action planning process. I am providing that the noise regulator will have recourse directly to the High Court to enforce any notice that it issues. This is the most effective form of enforcement and was given extensive consideration, including legal assessment. What the Deputy's amendment proposes is an extra administrative layer before court action. While I do not believe that is the intention of the amendment, it is certainly its effect. I am advised that administrative binds such as the one Deputy Daly is proposing are problematic and often not effective.
I accept the Minister's point that this scenario would be extremely rare but it is not unheard of. If it was never going to happen, we would not be providing a substantial section of the legislation to deal with it. We can anticipate that it may arise. I do not accept that what I am proposing creates an extra layer. Those against whom the enforcement orders would be placed would be the big organisations, not just the DAA. Let us say, for example, Ryanair is using an aircraft in breach of the limits, although the competent authority has said it wants the lowest emissions and the quietest aircraft. Say the competent authority sets a decibel limit for aircraft as part of the balanced approach, and one of the airline operators breaches the limit. In such cases, it is not realistic for the competent authority to keep going to the High Court. Where is provision made for something similar to the penalties that airports like Manchester can apply to airlines? In Manchester Airport, the penalty is £750 for every decibel over the threshold. That adds up for the airline operators and seems to be an easier option than litigation. Litigation might be effective in the case of outright defiance by the DAA or a big organisation deliberately and in black and white refusing to do something. However, breaches or abuse of some guidelines or breaches of decibel limits could happen regularly. How do we enforce the rules if there is not a financial penalty? How could the competent authority do something like what is done in other airports if we do not provide for it in law?
This would be a very strong message to send to the DAA. Obviously, there is the court option as well but this would be a strong message that the DAA could not get away with breaching the limit on a particular night. To go after a breach for one or two nights would be quite difficult. If there was an automatic mechanism whereby penalties would be imposed for any kind of breach, it would send a strong message and it is certainly worthy of putting in legislation. I accept Deputy Daly's point about improving the wording before Report Stage.
I want to respond in a positive way. I am not prepared to accept the amendment today but I am prepared to discuss it between now and Report Stage to see if anything can be done.
On what Deputy Daly said about Manchester Airport, if this is the benchmark for what airports do in respect of breaches, we should not be an outlier by doing something different.
Okay.
I am prepared to discuss the issue with the officials. I do not know how the competent authority would implement something of this nature. If it could be done through regulations or otherwise, that would great, but let us provide for it because we need a bit of a-----
Does the Deputy wish to press her amendment?
I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."
I understand Deputy Clare Daly may have something to say on this section.
I am not sure about these sections, although I am more sure about section 23 than I am about subsequent sections. We have to speak now or we will lose our chance to do so in subsequent Stages. This is a provision whereby the person to whom an enforcement message has been given has the right to go to the High Court to have the direction cancelled. I want to hear more about this proposal. It strikes me that this is an extra provision or layer for the big organisations, the airport operators and airlines and the DAA. It does not apply to residents as they would not be issued with an enforcement order. The circumstances in which this provision would apply are where the competent authority has adjudicated that one of the airlines or the airport operator, the DAA, has to do something to make life better for residents or others and that body refuses to comply. Why should it have the right to an extra layer of adjudication? These organisations are the ones with the money in all of this. The matter will have been the subject of a lengthy process. Either the competent authority has been given the expertise to adjudicate on these matters or it has not. Let us face it, we are giving the competent authority an expertise which, with respect, the High Court does not have. Why would we then forget all that good stuff that the competent authority and the appeals body have done with their expertise and allow the High Court to do it? I do not like this proposal but maybe I am barking up the wrong tree.
This is a standard provision. It provides for the ability of a recipient of an enforcement notice received under section 22 to apply to the High Court to have the direction of the competent authority cancelled.
Given the noise regulator has the power under section 22 to make an application to the High Court for an order requiring a person to comply with an enforcement notice, it is only fair and balanced that the recipient of such a notice be afforded the same opportunity. It is really so all parties are treated equally.
Is it not the case that, earlier in the process, everybody, whether a resident or an applicant, has the right to ask for a judicial review of the competent authority's decision or An Bord Pleanála's decision? Why are we adding another layer? This stage only kicks in where the process and the decision have been in place and all the timelags for normal appeals have departed, including in regard to access to the courts. If they have blatantly ignored that and been issued with an enforcement order, we are allowing them to come in again and to go to the courts. I do not like it.
This is for enforcement only. It is so all parties are treated equally when enforcement only is involved. That is the answer to the Deputy's question.
The problem is that the enforcement proceedings relate only to the big boys and we are giving them an extra layer. However, the applications and the input on all of the previous decision making are equally applicable to the recipient and the residents. They are all equal and everybody has access to the board if they do not like a decision, and it is the same with An Bord Pleanála. However, this layer is only being given to the big players.
This is being directed mainly at the big players but, at the end of the day, all parties are being treated equally under this section.
They are not. To use an example, instead of calling it the DAA, we will call it Aer Lingus this time. Let us say a decision has been made against it, requiring it to take an action-----
Excuse me for interrupting. We have legal advice that this has to be approached in this way and that it is legally consistent and necessary.
Is that because it is section 22?
Yes.
Is it not the case that where the enforcement notice on one side goes to the High Court, these people would be at the High Court to defend themselves anyway? Why are they given another shot at it?
It is in the interests of consistency and it is the legal advice that it is consistent.
Is the section agreed?
No, we do not agree. We need more on this, for sure.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 24
Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill."
I understand Deputy Daly wishes to make a point.
That was based on the previous issue. I will be re-entering this later but, obviously, the numbers are not here now for a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 25 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 28
Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill."
Sections 28 and 29 deal with the transitional period. I am not sure I am reading this right but, if I am, these are the clauses that allow the airport authority to amend the existing provisions. My thinking was that it has no right to remove them. I would be in favour of removing this part of the Bill and starting all over because I think, and the residents think, the existing provisions, which were given in previous planning permissions, were made for all the right reasons, with the residents' interests at heart. As I am not in favour of changing them, I would like these two clauses removed. If that is what these two sections are doing, which I thought they were, although I was not sure, then I would like them removed.
This section provides clarity but it does not mention any specific planning permission, as the Deputy knows.
I know that.
Nowhere does it indicate that. It is a general rule. It provides clarity that existing noise mitigation measures, whether in effect or not, will be considered noise mitigation measures for the purpose of this Bill. It is pretty clear that any of the past ones are considered, for the purpose of this Bill, to be present ones. This includes noise mitigation measures attached as conditions to existing planning consents. It is important this provision is retained, mainly as it will ensure continuity with the planning and development aspects of this Bill and provide clarity to the noise regulator and the planning authority. It will also allow the noise regulator to review any such measures in light of the balanced approach in line with Part 3 of this Bill to ensure consistency in our approach to mitigating noise problems.
This is one of the core purposes of the Bill. I am on the Dáil record on this point. It is wholly appropriate that regulators be empowered to take a full view of all existing and potential future noise mitigation measures at the airport. It is to be consistent and to ensure there is consistency throughout; it is not directed at any specific measure.
I have now realised I was actually barking up the right tree, so well done to me. This is the key point. The Minister is correct there are no specific planning applications or existing permissions mentioned in this, and that would be entirely inappropriate. However, it would also be utterly la-la for us to sit here without mentioning the giant elephant or 747 in the room, namely, the open and declared intention of the DAA, supported in many quarters, that immediately after this legislation is in place, it will be relying on it to seek changes to the current restrictions on night noise, night movements and so on. This is the issue which has caused huge concern for residents and it relates to the points I made earlier. Those conditions were put in after a very long battle, as we discussed the last day, and they were put in to protect human health. We have dealt with the issues around the impact on health, which is the nightmare reality for people.
If we take these provisions in the context of what the Minister has said and the discussion that was had the last day, when we were told there was an urgency in this regard and that it absolutely had to be done, we know what this means. It means the DAA has asked for this, and we have seen that its correspondence refers to uncertainty. I do not accept there is uncertainty. I am in favour of development at Dublin Airport. I got my livelihood from the airlines, and my constituents and former workmates rely on the airport. We want a healthy and vibrant airport. However, in the modern era, it has to be one which respects residents and works in tandem with them. The night restrictions that are in place can be kept in place and work alongside a growing and developing airport; it just requires a different outcome for the airline operators.
It is okay for the DAA to say Ryanair and Aer Lingus will decamp and go to Honolulu or whatever but they will not. What they will have to do is make changes. The current restrictions propose 65 night movements once the second runway is up and running and there is a restriction on night-time hours. At present there are some 99 night movements per night so it is true, on the surface, that once the second runway is operational, there will be a one third reduction in night flights from the present figure. However, on the basis of a new runway and much more movement during the day, what it means is not fewer flights overall, just fewer flights during that time.
What does this mean and why is the provision there? It is there to suit the likes of Ryanair utilising aircraft on a certain day in order to maximise its profits. It wants the aircraft going out at 6 a.m. so it can bring them back two and three times a day. It does not suit Mrs. Mop who is going to Tenerife to get up at 4 a.m. to drive up from Limerick to get that aeroplane, and it would actually suit her better if it was after 7 a.m. and would suit the residents in that area also. How do we square the circle? It is very easy. The airlines have multiple staff employed on aircraft scheduling and utilisation. What they have to do is match their fleets to the requirements. With regard to the 65 flights during the night, the businessmen going to London or businesswomen going to Berlin should be accommodated on an early flight and the airlines have the information available to accommodate that.
However, somebody going to Tenerife or Lanzarote does not need to get up in the middle of the night and disturb residents in St. Margaret's, Portmarnock and Swords. We have to start thinking like that because it is unsustainable for the aviation industry to carry on, unfettered. In that sense, having a balanced development in tandem with the way in which the airport operates is the best way forward. These conditions should be protected and the best way to reassure residents is to keep them in place. At the moment, they cannot be changed. This legislation is being introduced to deal with noise regulation but the DAA has said that it is going to use it to change the conditions. The reality is that it can change the conditions without this law but by structuring this Bill, which is good legislation, in this way with these two clauses in it, we are giving the DAA a platform to change those two conditions. If we do that and lose control of our democratic say in this part of the process, then we are abdicating our representative responsibility to the residents. I do not believe it should be included and I will definitely press the question.
I do not agree with the Deputy and the reasons are pretty clear. This legislation is not being introduced to suit the DAA. This legislation is a response to a regulation from Europe. That is why it is being introduced. The aim is to have a pan-European common standard on noise at airports. It would be wrong to exclude the DAA from applying under it. That would be absolutely incorrect. I am not a great lover of the DAA, as the Deputy will be aware, but it would not be right to exclude it in any way. The legislation has been introduced simply because of EU Regulation No. 598 which will provide consistency across Europe. If one of the consequences is, as the Deputy suggests, that the DAA will appeal those restrictions, and I am sure she is right about that, that is fine. Let it appeal them but to prejudge the result of that appeal is not something I am going to do. It would be absolutely wrong to do so and would be an expression of no confidence in the noise regulator in advance. I am very happy for any entity that has had restrictions imposed upon it in the past or that has had to introduce noise mitigation measures to make an appeal to the noise regulator at an early date and to let the cards fall wherever they do. That is the intention here.
This section provides clarity that existing noise mitigation measures, whether in effect or not, will be considered noise mitigation measures for the purpose of this Bill. This includes noise mitigation measures attached as conditions to existing planning consent. It is important that this provision be retained because it will ensure continuity with the planning and development aspects of this Bill and provide clarity to the noise regulator and the planning authority. It will also allow the noise regulator to review any such measures in light of the balanced approach, in line with Part 3, to ensure consistency in our approach to mitigating noise problems. That is one of the core purposes of the Bill. I am on the Dáil record on the point that it is wholly appropriate that the regulator would be empowered to take a full view of all existing and potential future noise mitigation measures at the airport. If the operating restrictions are reviewed, there will have to be a full noise assessment, subject to the full EU Regulation No. 598 process, subject to appeal, etc.
This is not in any way set up for any particular body. It is something which has come from Europe and aims to provide European consistency on these matters.
The legislation is required to transpose the EU regulation. That is why I do not oppose the legislation in its entirety. It is something that is supposed to be of benefit to residents but these two clauses are not part of that. The Minister can say that we cannot prejudge the outcome; maybe there will be something and that is fine. There is no "maybe" here. Everybody knows that this is the first step. This is why we were told that there is an urgency about this. The DAA has said that it needs access this to change the conditions. I am fully supportive of all the other good stuff that this legislation provides. That is why I will not oppose it. I am working to try to make it better in everybody's interests. These two clauses are problematic.
The Minister has said that we cannot prejudge but what one has, one holds. The restrictions that exist were put in place after a long and hugely costly process for the residents involved. Some of them participated in the oral hearings and in High Court actions at a cost of tens of thousands of euro. Out of that process they secured night-time restrictions that improved their well-being and they are damned if they are going to lose them now. They certainly do not want to be going back into the courts but if we give the facility for this to be reopened all over again, they will have to go through it all over again. They have secured these restrictions. Why would they do it all over again?
My point is that this is not obligatory under the regulation. This is an add-on. We can pass the regulation and all the other good stuff without these two clauses. I will definitely press this.
The Minister told us at our previous meeting, when we were seeking to add to the legislation, that he was restricted in terms of add-ons and was transposing the EU regulation into Irish law. This is not a requirement, as per the regulation. This is a brazen, two fingers to the residents who are trying to protect the conditions that are in place. We all accept that this legislation will be used by the DAA to try to change those conditions. What is the Minister's advice on the impact of not including this section in the legislation? Is it his view that it would somehow prevent the DAA from seeking change?
It would be utterly wrong to discriminate against anybody using this particular part of the legislation. It is anticipating a decision from the noise regulator to take a stance like that. I have no idea what decision the regulator might make but it is possible that the competent authority could decide that more noise mitigation measures are required. The Deputies seem to be anticipating that it would decide that there should be fewer restrictions but it could decide there should be more. I urge them to put their trust in the competent authority. I am prepared to do that and to accept whatever decision it makes.
The Minister is suggesting that we could have more measures put in but I just do not buy that.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 29
Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."
I oppose this section as well but will revisit the matter at a later stage, on the understanding that there will be dialogue with the Department between now and Report Stage.
Question put and declared carried.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.