Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister has a fundamental misunderstanding of some of the measures that the competent authority will employ. It is not just a case of fines or High Court action against the DAA. That could be the case for a large, fundamental breach but some of the breaches we are speaking about might be one-off occasions where the body responsible for the breach might not be the DAA but rather, say, Aer Lingus. For example, a pilot's behaviour could result in the decibel soundings being breached in an area. If a rule was in place to the effect that if the noise of the aircraft exceeded the limit by 1 dB, the fine could be the equivalent of £750, as is the case in the Manchester model, and that could be invested in a community fund in the area. In that instance, the authority would not bring Aer Lingus to court over that one breach. When the fine is flagged, however, will Aer Lingus not approach Clare Daly, the pilot, and tell her it has been levied with a fine of €3,000 because she had used the reverse thrust far too much? It could say she had been told to bring in measures to fly the aircraft more quietly.

Pilot behaviour has an impact. While the type of aircraft also has an impact, fines would not be as suitable in that regard and, therefore, the intention of the fine is to correct behaviour. The Minister's response shows that it is not an either-or matter and we do not seek to remove anything from the Bill. The three amendments in question can, and should, be incorporated into the legislation because all we are doing is giving the authority the power to impose a financial penalty. As the Minister has correctly stated, the DAA and the stakeholders could sit down with the competent authority and agree a voluntary scheme, which nothing in our amendments prohibits. In fact, they will give such a measure a firmer statutory footing whereby it could be done properly.

I wish to make other points about the letter but I will do so when speaking on some of the subsequent amendments. Over the course of the debate, I have become more convinced that we need to incorporate the three amendments, which are complementary rather than contradictory. I hope, therefore, that we will pass them.

See this speech in context