Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is very important that we agree things in this House sometimes. There is no shame in the Government being defeated sometimes. In fact, it is a good thing if the Government loses various amendments, if that is the wish of the House.

These amendments will not be accepted for the same reasons I set out on Committee Stage. I may be defeated on that, but if that is the wish of the House so be it. I am as anxious as everyone else to ensure that there is full and timely compliance with all decisions of the noise regulator. However, financial penalties, such as those proposed here, are unlikely to be effective. The ability to quickly bring court proceedings to bear simply works better. This is a matter of opinion. Some Members of this House genuinely believe that the threat of financial penalties to the DAA or other airport authorities will work. Others feel that such an approach will be less effective. I am not sure that those who have said that big business responds to fines are correct. Big businesses, particularly State monopolies, are not paying out with their own money. If State monopolies were fined it would, in effect, fall to the taxpayer to pay those fines. We should think about that.

In the event that there is non-compliance with noise mitigation measures, section 23 of the Bill gives the noise regulator the power to direct the airport authority or an airport user, using an enforcement notice to undertake actions in order to comply with a noise mitigation measure or an operating restriction. This might be in response to a complaint made to the regulator from a local resident, for example. In circumstances of non-compliance with such an enforcement notice, the noise regulator then has direct recourse to the High Court. Indeed, section 25 of the Bill, as it stands, provides that such a hearing can be expedited.

The issue of fines was considered by my officials, by myself and others in conjunction with the Office of the Attorney General, and the very strong consensus was that what is currently provided for in this Bill is the most effective form of enforcement. It is considered that the direct path to the courts is the most effective means of enforcement of this Bill, and in particular it is in practice more effective and faster than administrative sanctions which themselves could be challenged all the way to the court. In reality, an administrative fine system, such as this, serves to delay enforcement because fines are issued, disputed and end up before the courts. The approach I am setting out bypasses this potential delaying tactic.

On amendment No. 89, referred to by Deputy Brendan Ryan, I do not propose to set out in primary legislation the requirement for the noise regulator to direct the airport authority to fix its airport charges in respect of noisier aircraft. This may well be a measure required by the noise regulator because it is part of the so-called balanced approach under regulation 598/2014. However, that is a matter for the independent regulator to determine, having regard to the cause of noise and the best way to tackle it. For the regulator to be truly independent, it must be able to come to its own unencumbered decision as to what is required to mitigate noise created by aircraft at Dublin Airport. In line with regulation 598/2014, independence must mean that the regulator is not directed to take a specific course of action.

Deputy Clare Daly referred to the Manchester scheme. I understand that is a voluntary agreement between the airport and the local authority. We are dealing with primary legislation, and a statutory administrative fine scheme is not something I am willing to support, based on the legal advice I have referred to on the effectiveness and suitability of such a scheme.

Deputy Brendan Ryan has referred many times to the Fingal letter. That letter dates from November 2017. All the issues have been addressed. Fingal has gone on record, specifically in October last year, saying that it is now satisfied of its own independence. The Attorney General has done likewise.

See this speech in context