Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The debate is extremely constructive and I share - and I have been through this for a long time now - their concern about the residents. Forgive me if I said this on Second Stage because I have debated this so often that I am not quite sure when I am repeating myself,but I have met residents from every group who have sought to meet me. I am not sure that I met the residents from St. Margaret's but I certainly met a group at the request of Senator Clifford Lee and Deputy Darragh O'Brien. Deputy Clare Daly asked me to meet a group of Travellers. I have agreed to meet groups at the request of Opposition and Government Members and will continue to meet them, if they feel that is useful. That was long before the noise regulator was finally chosen. This is constantly a problem and does not let us compete for sympathy with people who are confronted by this problem because everybody feels that. The problem has to be resolved and it will never be resolved in a way which is utterly satisfactory to everybody. That would be impossible.

I applaud the fact that Senator Craughwell went out to visit residents out at the airport. That is not some sort of phoney bombast that is produced in this House and the other House from time to time. He went out and found that he empathised with the residents and indeed came in and pleaded their case in this House. He said that it may not be effective or it may, but I cannot prejudge that, but there is a real case to be made for the residents who find themselves victims of noise which they find intolerable. I, as Minister, have to balance as everybody in this House does, that fact with the need to keep the airport open. It would be utterly crazy if I, as Minister, were to say that the interest of a very small minority merits an airport being closed or being unable to operate. My duty then is to the residents to alleviate the problem as much as possible to ensure that it is not excessive and to compensate them when they are in a situation which is very difficult for them to deal with. That is what we have tried to do in this Bill. I know there are justifiable criticisms on behalf of the residents and I thought the contributions from Sinn Féin were authentic and very sincere as was that of Senator Humphreys but they have to understand, and I think they do understand, that this is a matter of common sense, that we have to keep the airport open and what Senator Reilly said is absolutely true. He is a doctor, he understands health better than anybody in this House but to say that the actual decibels in this case are not acceptable would have an effect on the airport which would detrimentally affect the economy of the country, the neighbourhood and indeed the DAA which, for all its faults, employs one of Senator Humphreys's children and is operating a very successful airport, which we must keep open. We are determined that we should do so and it is the key to economic prosperity, it is a key to a great many tourists coming to this country and is something that must be given consideration and must not be treated in anyflaithiúlachway. I do not suggest that any Senators are doing that and I respect fully what all Senators have said this evening but they have also to respect the fact that the Minister cannot be expected to take measures which would have such an effect on the economy that it could be utterly disastrous. We have to listen to voices of moderation and that is why we have appointed a regulator. Those who criticise the regulator will have to realise that some of his terms of reference and it is mentioned quite frequently in EU regulation No. 598/2014. Let me quote: (11)

The importance of health aspects need 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.

Health is not being ignored at all, it is a very important part of the equation. We could debate forever what the acceptable decibel rate is, but we will leave that to the regulator and not to ourselves or anybody else. I acknowledge the concerns.

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 on health.It is important that this House understands that the issue of measuring and monitoring the health impact of aircraft noise has been discussed at length at each Stage of this Bill so far, and rightly so. It is a hugely important issue and local residents are entitled to understand what is in this Bill to protect their interests, including on the control of noise and its impact on their health.

Let me quote directly from Regulation 598, which underpins this Bill and applies fully in Ireland. Article 1(2)(a) of the regulation states that the purpose to 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 is there in the directive - health is important. Health must be taken into account.

The Bill also makes specific cross-reference to the 2002 environmental noise directive and the 2018 environmental noise regulations, which leaves no doubt that these EU laws apply to the work of the noise regulator too. This reference was an amendment made on Report Stage in the Dáil following representations from Deputies Troy and Darragh O’Brien. Again, let me quote directly. The environmental 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.

As regards the amendments put forward by Senators to introduce changes to definitions and specific noise thresholds, I cannot accept them. These amendments would not have any practical effect on how the noise regulator will incorporate the assessment of health into its decision-making. It would have the effect of unilaterally amending what has been agreed at the UN's International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, and included in EU regulation. I am sure that it is well intended but it is not something that we can allow to pass into Irish law. Similar amendments have been proposed by Dáil Deputies at various points through the Committee and Report Stages of this Bill, which I have explained are not appropriate because they have the effect of amending an EU regulation. As we all should know, the national parliament of a member 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, namely, the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. I am sure this is not a deliberate attempt to cut across EU law but that is what this amendment does.

The main responsibility of the noise regulator is to adopt the balanced approach, as agreed at UN level and written into EU law, which entails undertaking an analysis of the various measures available to reduce noise through the exploration of four principal elements, namely, noise reduction at source, land-use planning and management, noise abatement operational procedures and operating restrictions as a last resort. It is not for Ireland to redefine the entire balanced approach process. The focus of Regulation 598 is to apply the balanced approach when a noise problem is identified. This is set out in Recitals 3, 4, 9, 14 and 18 of the regulation. It is also set out in Articles 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the regulation. It is simply not permissible in national law to redefine the meaning of the balanced approach as set out in the EU regulation.

With regards to the proposed amendment to introduce a specific, fixed decibel limit for night-time, this too runs contrary to existing EU law. First, on a matter of principle, it undermines the principal policy objective of the Bill, which is to establish an independent noise regulator that will make evidence-based regulatory decisions based on technical assessments and public consultations. It is not appropriate that primary legislation includes a fixed threshold that in effect undermines the independence and expertise of the new regulator. That is what the regulator is for. A similar amendment was passed in the Dáil on Report Stage. That needs to be rectified because to allow the Bill to pass with these provisions included would be legally unsound. I am advised that inclusion of any specific threshold in the Bill amounts to the introduction of an operating restriction and, as such, is in direct contravention of everything EU Regulation 598 is trying to introduce. Government Amendment No. 19 will be moved later in the debate to remove specific reference to these guidelines, which were inserted on Report Stage in the Dáil.

It is not a question of whether the guidelines of the World Health Organization are right or wrong, rather it is about what is possible, possible to implement, and in what timeframe and at what cost. These are all of the things being considered at EU level as part of the review of the 2002 environmental noise directive, which includes consideration of how to treat and reflect the WHO guidelines. I cannot stand over a Bill that pre-empts decisions about future EU regulations and directives on environmental noise.