Dáil debates

Tuesday, 26 March 2019

Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Bill 2018: Report Stage (Resumed)

 

8:00 pm

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Unsurprisingly, I am afraid it does not. In particular, it does not help in the context of the fact that we obviously discussed these issues on Committee Stage and I agreed then that the language I was then proposing was loose and gave rise to some of the concerns the Minister has reiterated without taking into account the change we have made to tighten it up. I do not buy the line the Minister gives because it is tempered by the second point. All of the circumstances the Minister highlighted, including the right to have a specific date or the occurrence of an event as a trigger, are still in existence. That is still in the draft as we have provided it which is what provides the legal clarity. The change of language makes it much more of an exception. In essence, if one has to authorise something, it is, obviously, an exception and the expectation is that it will be implemented as soon as possible. Deferral, however, is something like a putting off. One sees that if one looks up the definition in a dictionary. We are trying to create a happier medium between the two. The language I have put forward is preferable to that as it is much more positive endorsement. If one looks at the phrases and the parts of the Bill where some of this comes into effect, there are sections on planning decisions. If it is a planning decision, it should be a condition of the planning permission. As such, there should be no deferral at all. We are still giving the specific dates and occurrences. They are all still there. In some ways, these are technical things but they have to be rooted in what we are discussing. These are public health measures to mitigate the impact of noise on residents. We do not want a little loophole for someone to come through and delay that implementation while at the same time we do not want it to be so ludicrous as to be impractical. This form of wording is different from the form proposed on Committee Stage. It is a better balance. It is clear to me that there is no legal impediment. There would be if we had proposed taking out section 19(18)(b) but all of those things are still there. I disagree with the Minister.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.