Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 86:

In page 45, line 23, after “failures,” to insert “including the imposition of financial penalties”.

The Labour Party has tabled similar amendments in this category. We are dealing with matters such as compliance reports whereby the competent authority can come up with proposals to avoid or reduce failures. This relates to giving the competent authority the power to impose financial penalties on those who avoid or fail to implement noise mitigation, operating restriction measures and so forth. The Bill allows the competent authority to bring forward a compliance report regarding what work it has done on the measures and it also provides that the competent authority can bring forward proposals to avoid or reduce failures referred to in the sections. What we are seeking to do here is give the competent authority the ability to levy a financial penalty as part of trying to reduce or avoid the failures of compliance. The reason is that the carrot does not go very far and unless one has the ability to financially penalise the airport operator, airline or whomever, the incentive is massively reduced.

I tabled a different amendment in this regard on Committee Stage. It was more cumbersome and prescriptive, which was probably beyond what should be in primary legislation, but we must have a reference to it here that does not tie hands and is not too prescriptive. Other jurisdictions have this principle in place. The night noise policy in Manchester Airport is an example. The strategy is based on six different categories and noise penalties are a substantial part of that. Manchester operates a system whereby night movements cannot exceed 7% of the airport's total movements. That is first. Then it looks at developing a quota count, QC, budget for summer and winter seasons and a points system. Basically, points are graded based on the noisiness of the aircraft. Old aircraft would have a high quota count while new aircraft would have a low quota count. The policy then involves the putting in place of measures. For example, it states, "A modern quiet [aircraft] ... may be classified as QC0.25 on arrival and QC0.5 on departure, whilst older aircraft ... may be classified as QC4 on arrival and QC8 on departure." It is a way of allowing the airport operators to manage the noise but when they do not do it, and there are many measures restricting the number of noisier aircraft, particularly at night, there is the ability to impose a financial penalty.

It is encouraging pilots to take steps to reduce the noise and to fly aircraft in the quietest way possible. It also tries to encourage the airlines to introduce the quietest aeroplanes. However, it has a grading in terms of decibels and anything over that would bring a minimum penalty. It is €750 for the first decibel at which the noise level is exceeded and a further €150 for each decibel beyond that. The principle is there and it works. It is a little bit of carrot and a little bit of stick. In the same way engine testing would not be permitted within certain timeframes or the airport would agree on a certain number. In Manchester, 20 engine tests per year are permitted and they would generally be prohibited between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

We are seeking to get a genuinely balanced approach for the implementation of noise mitigation measures and the implementation of operating restrictions. Encouraging good activity is one way of doing it by generating a positive list of recommendations for pilots, such as to avoid the use of reverse thrust and so forth. There is all that good stuff but having the ability to impose a financial penalty is a key part of that as well. The amendment I propose to insert overcomes some of the more prescriptive attributes of the amendment I proposed on Committee Stage and gets over some of the concerns the Minister had then that there might be a constitutional impediment or some other legal argument as to why we cannot put measures in the Bill. I do not accept that. The generality of this amendment, which establishes the ability to set a financial penalty, overcomes that point. I propose my two amendments in that regard.

See this speech in context