Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 14, line 25, to delete “defer” and substitute “authorise”.

Always when there is a gap between sessions, it takes a while to get back into the issues and refresh the memory as to where we are in the process. It is my understanding that all of these amendments relate to the issues of phraseology, language and intent. In various parts of the legislation reference is made to the competent authority or the appeals body deciding that a noise mitigation measure should be put in place. Such a measure is something that is of benefit to the community and it has been decided that it will be implemented. This amendment, along with others in the grouping, refers to the language around instances where such a decision may not be implemented. In essence, what the Bill says in various places is that the competent authority can "defer" the introduction of positive noise mitigation measures for a period of time. We discussed this issue on Committee Stage. There is obviously a certain logic around that because in some instances the measure simply cannot be implemented straight away. We understand that but what we are trying to do by changing the language is to have a much more positive approach. My amendments provide that the assumption should be that the noise mitigation measure is moved to be implemented immediately. Instead of the term "defer", which is a negative word that means to delay or put off, I provide that the competent authority can "authorise", for reasons contained in the notice, a lead-in time for the coming into force of a noise mitigation measure. In essence, what I am doing in all of these amendments is taking out "defer", which allows a certain laxity which is not helpful, and replacing it with "authorise", providing that the competent authority or the appeals body can authorise a lead-in time. By doing that, the onus is on the DAA or whatever body is required to implement the noise mitigation measure to start straight away. If the mitigation measure means that a building must be built, we realise that it will not be completed straight away but we want it to be started straight away. The language is very important here. The aim is to get away from the possibility of laxity which allows an out or a delay.

We must bear in mind that every delay has a punitive effect on the residents living nearby who have to put up with noise which has been deemed to be unacceptable by either the competent authority or the appeals body. A decision has been made that something must be put in place to mitigate the noise, and what I am trying to do here is to make sure that the legislation cannot be exploited by an authority that wants to wriggle out of its responsibility. The language is balanced in the sense of being practical. We are not being ridiculous and saying that the mitigation measures must be implemented overnight. We understand that some measures can take time, but the assumption must be that the implementation should start straight away, even if it takes some time to conclude. My language is far better than that used in the Bill currently and I urge Members to endorse this group of amendments.

See this speech in context