Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

First, I thank every Deputy who has contributed to this Bill throughout the process. I am grateful to them for the contributions they have made. Deputy Clare Daly alluded to the fact that this Bill has changed significantly as a result to a large degree of my officials discussing it with them, a heavy contribution from Fianna Fáil and, indeed, from other parties. The Bill has changed to satisfy many of the Members who are in this House today and the residents whom they represent. I refer to Deputies Darragh O'Brien, Clare Daly, Brendan Ryan and Broughan and I am sorry if I have left anybody out. There has been a large volume of what Deputy Clare Daly described as behind-the-scenes talks - they were not secret but they were outside this House - to try to improve the Bill. I am grateful to Fianna Fáil for what it contributed because it has improved the Bill. Its members put forward measures which were in the interests of residents. They have succeeded in getting measures through, agreed by us, which were in the interests of residents. Others have done so as well. Let us not pretend that this legislation has a history of conflict. There has been co-operation. There are matters outstanding on which we do not agree and they will be resolved, I presume, today, or sooner or later, in this House.

This is not a dictatorial Government Bill. This is a Bill that was negotiated, and to which many of the Deputies in this House, including Deputies Troy and Darragh O'Brien, have contributed significantly. The residents should in all cases feel themselves well represented by those in this House who have made their voices heard on their behalf.

The Bill has changed due to representations from everybody. Since it was initiated, I have listened to Deputies' views and some forceful arguments. That engagement has improved the Bill in many areas. Regarding health, I will explain in more detail in a moment. In respect of strengthening the accountability of the noise regulator, for example, the regulator now has to publish an annual report on its performance and there will be an independent review every five years. The engagement improved the Bill also in respect of insulation schemes and the buy-out scheme, to which Deputies referred but which we will discuss, probably at much greater length, later.

On this amendment, I acknowledge the extensive, constructive and genuine debates we have had during the passage of the Bill, specifically, regarding the impact of noise on the health and welfare of the local residents of Dublin Airport who have been so well represented. It is only fair, on the Deputies' part, to say that we all share the same concern. That is what the noise regulator is about. If there was no noise regulator, let us imagine the situation for residents.

The only point of dispute is on how best to ensure the interests of local residents are properly provided for in the Bill. No Deputy or Senator should seek to claim sole ownership of this issue. We all share common ground in respect of seeking to stand up for the interests of local residents. This is hugely important and local residents are entitled to understand how this Bill will protect their interests.

Repeating what I told the Seanad on Tuesday, I would like to make it absolutely clear that the assessment of the health impact of aircraft noise is an integral part of this Bill. This Bill and the EU regulation underpinning it requires the noise regulator to take full account of existing EU law around health and environmental noise. I will quote directly from regulation 598/2014 which underpins this Bill and applies fully in Ireland. Article 1.2(a) of the regulation states that the purpose of the regulatory framework that Fingal will roll out is "to facilitate the achievement of specific noise abatement objectives, including health aspects, at the level of individual airports". The regulation also states:

The importance of health aspects needs to be recognised in relation to noise problems, and it is therefore important that those aspects be taken into consideration in a consistent manner at all airports when a decision is taken on noise abatement objectives, taking into account the existence of common Union rules in this area. Therefore, health aspects should be assessed in accordance with Union legislation on the evaluation of noise effects.

It cannot be much plainer or simpler than that. To give the impression that health is somehow out of the equation is wrong. It is specifically mentioned many times in the EU directive and I will refer to that.

The Bill also makes specific cross-references to the 2002 environmental noise directive and the 2018 noise regulations which leaves no doubt that these EU laws also apply to the work of the noise regulator. This cross-reference, made in Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill, specifically section 9(23) and under section 11 and the insertion of the new section 34C(22), was an amendment made on Report Stage in the Dáil following strong representations from Deputies Troy and Darragh O'Brien. The environment noise directive and its updated implementing regulations from 2018 set out: "A common approach within the European Union intended to avoid, prevent or reduce, on a prioritised basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise." By "harmful effects" the directive means negative effects on human health. This is unequivocal. I hear what Deputies are saying but let us not fly in the face of facts.

Similarly, we have discussed at length the World Health Organization, WHO, guidelines on noise. Making those guidelines a legally binding requirement for the Irish aircraft noise regulator is not something we can allow to pass into law. As I have explained on a number of occasions, such an amendment is not appropriate because it has the effect of amending an EU regulation. As we all should know, the national parliament for a state is not able to amend an EU regulation. EU regulations are made and amended at EU level through the EU institutions of which Ireland is a part - the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament.

I am sure this is not a deliberate attempt to cut across EU law but that is what such an amendment does. It is not a question of whether the WHO guidelines are right or wrong. Rather, it is about what is possible and possible to implement, in what timeframe and at what cost. These things are all being considered at EU level as part of the review of the 2002 environmental noise directive which included consideration of how to treat and reflect the WHO guidelines. They are being considered. Should there be a change at EU level reflected through amendments to regulation 598 and the environmental noise directive, that change will immediately and directly apply to this Bill and the work of the noise regulator. However, I cannot stand over a Bill here which would pre-empt any such decision about future EU regulations and directives. The Bill is wholly in line with EU law and all the provisions and protections enshrined therein. There is no doubt that the impact of aircraft noise on the health of local residents will form part of the noise regulator's regulatory deliberation and decisions.

I have been pushed very hard on this point by Deputy Darragh O'Brien in particular. He has, to be fair to him, insisted on meeting officials, pushed them hard on the legal position and been clear in underlining that health would be an integral part of the regulatory regime.

I have dealt with most things in those replies but I will address some of the more specific points, some of which did not really address the health area, but I will try and address them anyway. Deputy Brendan Ryan says that the fact that I am not accepting his amendments exposes me on health issues. I have given my reasons why I am not accepting them. It is not that the Deputy has exposed me to health issues, it is because I cannot accept his amendments. I do not think Deputy Ryan will disagree that health is repeatedly covered in this Bill. Let the message not go out from this debate that somehow health has been ignored because it is quite the opposite. The regulation keeps referring to health. It refers to the importance of health aspects to be recognised as part of noise problems.

The Deputies may disagree with the noise levels involved or the way it is being implemented but the noise regulator is obliged to consider health as a top priority. I disagree with some of the suggestions made here about the levels, the extent and consequences that may or may not arise but we are on the same side about health. We are leaving it to the regulator and cannot possibly run something that is counter to the EU regulation.

I acknowledge the substantial contribution of Deputy Clare Daly to this Bill. She has had changes made by the power of argument and that is fair enough and should be acknowledged. She is right when she says it is a long and tortuous process because it has been both of those things. To talk about the Bill being rammed through is somewhat unfair. This time last year, the delays were the problem. Deputies were asking what was happening and why it was taking so long. People are now saying they want it to take longer. Deputy Clare Daly was not a Member of the Seanad so she was not there and it is unfair and wrong to suggest the Bill was rammed through the Seanad. It was not. It went into the Seanad on Second Stage and went through Committee and Report Stages. There was no time limit whatsoever in the Seanad the night before last. I told the Seanad that I was prepared to sit there as long as necessary. The Senators took the decision that they did not want to speak for any longer.

See this speech in context