Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

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.