Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No.2:

In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:“ “CAR” means the Commission for Aviation Regulation;”.

This is the heart of the debate for many people. This is the section that deals with the organisation that will assume the task of competent authority to regulate aircraft noise and all of the impacts of it and so it is critically important. The Government has decided to award that task to Fingal County Council, a decision which has been universally objected to by every residents' group impacted by aircraft noise and was not campaigned for by Fingal County Council. The DAA, on paper at least, has said that it does not care who does the job as long as somebody does it.

The most obvious point made by so many citizens is that Fingal County Council could not undertake this task. The fact that it is being given this task flies in the face of what has been done by other EU jurisdictions in this regard. Let us recap: eight member states do not need a regulator; eight others have designated the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, equivalent as their regulator; five have designated a government Department; two have designated multiple bodies; two have not yet made a decision; and three, according to the Minister, Deputy Ross, have designated one or more local, regional or federal authority as the competent authority. Ireland is lumped in with Germany and the UK, but the devil is in the detail because no member state, including the UK and Germany, has designated to one local authority. Ireland as the only country to do so is an outlier.

There is good reason other member states have not done this but there is a particularly good reason in the Irish context, namely, the over-reliance of Fingal County Council on the rate base of the DAA, not to mention the fact that the council has no expertise in regard to noise. In saying that Fingal County Council is not appropriate, we are proposing an alternative. That alternative, supported by most of the Opposition - hopefully, all of the Opposition when it comes to a vote - is the Commission for Aviation Regulation, CAR. I put it to the Minister that his assessment in the briefings we got that the Commission for Aviation Regulation is not suitable because it does not have any expertise, capacity or an organisational framework, was not a correct assessment of the Commission for Aviation Regulation. It is an assessment in the present and does not take into account the decision made by Government in 2017 which will result in the break up of the IAA such that we will have one regulator in this State for the aviation sector, as we should. The CAR will become that regulator. It is utterly ridiculous that we would set up a regulatory body and not give over to that body one of the biggest functions of regulation. That is utter lunacy.

I agree there are serious problems with the IAA. It is true that it has a high level of expertise and employee engagement that would be suitable to this task but its current format in terms of its commercial and regulatory remit makes it unsuitable. Somebody said to me last week that it is like asking the Hutchs and Kinahans to take responsibility for Garda overtime. This is the oversight we have currently in terms of aviation.

I support the Minister's call to break up the IAA and to remove its regulatory function. Yesterday, in a reply to a question the Minister told me that work in regard to the IAA is well under way and that there is a high level team working on it. It is true that new legislation would be necessary to give the CAR a more enhanced basis but that would not delay this function moving to it. This function is an occupation of this piece of legislation. We can designate this regulatory function in advance to the CAR on the basis that, as the Minister told me yesterday, the high level group will have the assessment on the break up of the IAA and the transfer of its functions to the CAR done by the summer. The takes away from the argument being put forward by Fianna Fáil that Fingal County Council should be the fall-back position. A fall-back position is the position one takes when one loses one's main goal. I take it from that that Fianna Fáil will be supporting the CAR as the competent authority. If not, then Fingal County Council is not the fall-back position and it is putting forward the council with a caveat. To me, that is not what residents want.

The only excuse I have heard in terms of what I have proposed is that it would delay the process. I have heard no argument that validates that position. Why would it delay the process? The dogs in the street know that Fingal County Council does not have the expertise to carry out this function. Everybody knows that that expertise will have to be bought in in the short term regardless of what body is designated the competent authority. The idea that that expertise can be contained within Fingal County Council based on the salary scales and staff breakdown which the Minister's office gave us in committee is utterly ludicrous. This is not a format that will suit a regulatory function of this character given the substantial interests at stake.

I appeal to Fianna Fáil to stand with the rest of the Opposition and support the CAR as the best alternative because Fingal County Council does not wash with anybody in the area. I say that with no disrespect to anybody in Fingal County Council. A local authority is a different type of body with a different set up. There is a reason no other country in Europe has done this. A local authority is not suitable. This is being done for political expediency. This is not good enough when it comes to legislation that will have to operate into the future. If there was a slight delay in terms of what I am proposing - I do not accept there would be - it would be a price worth paying given that the Department delayed and dragged its heels for years on this issue. This is completely unacceptable. I strongly recommend the CAR as the competent authority.

See this speech in context