Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

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.