Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Government amendments that were carried last week were a direct result of that engagement and serve to reinforce that the new regulatory regime will be fair for all stakeholders, will be seen to be fair and will be accountable to external assessment on that basis. The amendments passed include provision for a review to take place of the performance by the regulator of its functions under this Bill. The first such review must happen within seven years, and every five years thereafter. That first seven-year period is necessary to ensure the regulator and the appeals body have one full regulatory cycle under their belts, so that the first review can look at all aspects of how the structures have worked, including the assessment process, the consultation, the decision-making, any appeal and the monitoring. In practice, I expect the first review will happen sooner than this, but there is no point in forcing a review after three or five years and finding that it is too soon to provide a full picture of how things have worked and are working. The outcome of the review would be formally reported on that report to be published. If there are any matters of concern arising from the review, I would fully expect the Oireachtas committee to examine the matter further.

Furthermore, the amendments passed last week also provide that the regulator will produce an annual report detailing the work it has undertaken in the previous year and setting out its programme for the forthcoming year. This will be entirely separate from and in addition to any annual report produced by the council with regard to its other work.

I want to quickly come back to the matter of the references to health, which was an important debate. As I said, this Bill must be read in tandem with Regulation (EU) 598/2014 itself and with other related EU directives, including the environmental noise directive. All of these apply to Fingal County Council as the new noise regulator. I want to assure the House that in this Bill, as it is now drafted, whatever is decided at EU level in relation to the WHO guidelines will have full applicability to Fingal County Council, in its role as noise regulator. I have tried to explain that Ireland cannot move unilaterally on that front, when giving effect simultaneously to Regulation (EU) 598/2014 in this Bill.

Going back to the matter in hand, amendments Nos. 51 and 90 to 92, inclusive, introduce a practical and workable complaints procedure. In the first instance, under amendment No. 51, it would be a matter solely for the noise regulator to consider if there are grounds to review a noise assessment, where circumstances may have changed. It also gives power for the regulator to direct the airport authority to provide it with any necessary information it requires to undertake such an assessment.

Under amendment No. 91, a new subsection would be inserted into section 2, the section which relates to the regulator's monitoring powers. Under this new provision, any person can make a complaint to the regulator and ask it to review the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures which are in place. This provides for a mechanism by which a person with a genuine complaint has somewhere to go and be heard.

Amendment Nos. 90 and 92 are consequential to amendment No. 91. I note that my amendments have the effect of replacing Deputy Clare Daly's amendment on Committee Stage. The intention of that amendment, however, is retained and expanded on.

In summary, only the regulator can consider if there is good reason to open a regulatory decision in between the five-year regulatory cycle, but any person can complain to the regulator at any point and request an investigation into non-compliance with a regulatory decision.

See this speech in context