Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This group of amendments is incredibly important. We have to restate what we are talking about, that is, the devastating impact of noise on human health. This is a serious problem around the globe. It is recognised by the European Union as one estimated to cause between 30,000 and 50,000 premature deaths every year across the Union. To deal with this and its chronic health implications, the key measure is the environmental noise directive.

In response to our raising the need to have the WHO guidelines in the legislation, the Minister's answer is that we should not worry about them because they are already covered. This is based on the view that because of the anchoring in the directive, updating will occur as the regulation is updated and we do not need to specify the guidelines. Indeed, points were made to the effect that there is a technical reason one cannot make a specification and that the directive has to be copied down. I do not buy that. We need to be more specific in respect of this matter. We had briefings subsequent to Committee Stage that a number of us attended. Not everybody attended so some people might not be fully up to speed. I thank the Department officials for organising the briefings. With regard to the point that we should not worry about this matter and that the health impact is already covered, the first reason given as to why we should be reassured was that it is covered in recital 11 of EU Regulation No. 598/2014. Recitals, however, do not have the same legal effect as the body of the regulation and the directive itself. Therefore, relying on a recital does not give any legal comfort at all.

Deputy Troy is correct that there was a general agreement on Committee Stage that some formula of words would be taken into account that would give effect to the WHO guidelines. In fairness, scientists, those with our understanding and anybody dealing with this area knows this is the direction in which we need to be going. Why would we adapt something that is outdated?

An issue was raised by residents. I am not sure whether the point is accurate but the Minister might want to address it also. Clarity needs to be reached. There is a belief that needs to be explained, that is, that the Minister's amendments, which include a reference to SI 549, are an attempt to water down or delay the application of any updating of the environmental noise directive of 2002. That point has been made and the Minister needs to address it.

The fact that we are relying on the Minister's word that the WHO criteria is there is not really good enough.

The Minister might also explain the excuse to the effect that when we are transcribing a directive, we have to go about it in two ways. It has to be done a certain way if the directive refers to a member state and we have a certain leeway if it refers to the competent authority. We had the debate on Committee Stage as to whether things can be included or excluded or whether the regulations have to be covered by the letter of the law. The Minister needs to deal with that because I believe that Ireland, as a member state, is absolutely entitled to specify the criteria that the competent authority will be operating. I have two amendments in this group, the second of which, No. 85, requires that the competent authority would be directed to ensure that average exposure is reduced below 45 decibels and night exposure is below 40 decibels, such levels to be revised in accordance with the guidelines of the WHO. I want the Minister to deal with this. According to my reading of the briefing we got from the Minister's officials, my insertion of this amendment at that part of the Bill is not in contradiction with anything we are entitled to do. The fact that it has not been ruled out of order verifies that is the case. We are all saying the WHO guidelines are the criteria and we should put them in the legislation. We can put them in. Why would we expect our citizens to endure anything less than best practice? Best practice is adhering to those levels.

It is interesting to note that it is not just us saying this. Correspondence between some senior planners in Fingal County Council from three years ago has been released. As part of the county council's deliberations of the inner and outer noise zones at Dublin Airport as far back as 2016, the correspondence refers to discussions that were ongoing at that time with the WHO which were expected to be published soon. That was three years ago. The correspondence refers to lots of evidence about how there can be adverse health impacts and, as such, the WHO should be considered and taken into account in the Bill when published. We just want to ensure that happens. Everybody wants to ensure that and, if it is definitely covered, why can we not specify it?

The technical drafting objections which were used on Committee Stage as to why we could not insert it in the area I then inserted it are overcome by where I am now inserting it with amendment No. 85. I deliberately specified that point. It is absolutely critical.

Is it not criminal that we are here in 2019 when we know that the noise directives at European level were revised and amended by the WHO in 2009? It talked about these levels ten years ago. There are people who have to go home tonight and who are being offered paltry buy-outs and inadequate insulation to endure levels way beyond those in the directive. It is not good enough. We need the WHO guidelines specified in the Bill. There is no contradiction and if the Minister is saying that it is already covered, then there is no harm in specifying it.

See this speech in context