Roderic O'Gorman
Dublin West · Green Party · Ireland
“These are men and women who served their working lives within the British civil service system but who, following unification, would be drawing their pensions in a united Ireland. The question of the funding of that will be extremely significant in any talks following a "Yes" vote on both parts of the island.”
“Some 100 extra staff have been hired to the public domain team to tackle waste and dumping and our councillors will continue to fight for a cleaner and greener Dublin.”
“These challenges are magnified by the continued failure of the current political institutions in Northern Ireland to operate for the best interests of the people rather than achieving best political advantage for the parties.”
“In the Dublin Central area, an average of 50 tonnes per month of illegally dumped waste is being removed by the council. It is a huge amount of waste, and this is more than is collected in an entire year from whole counties elsewhere in the country. Our current model of waste management is a direct contributor to this.”
“This means that in many areas, bags are the notional solution but these cause issues with seagulls or foxes or are intermingled with illegally dumped bags. The net result is our footpaths are strewn with waste. Dublin City Council recently rolled out a system of waste compactors in the core areas of the city centre.”
“The solution is to rationalise the current system, put local authorities back at the centre of waste management processes and use this to get a better handle on pricing and illegal dumping through contracts that are right for each specific area, instead of the one-size-fits-all model we have at the moment that is not actually working anyw…”
The complete record
Every one of 975 lines we hold for Roderic O'Gorman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 20.
“I thank the Deputies for bringing forward this important motion. I am very conscious as we speak here this morning that there are families all over the country still undertaking a clean-up of their homes and businesses and assessing the impact of the severe flooding on them. Climate change means these floods are going to become more regular and more severe. That is why the approach the State takes to flooding needs to change. In the week since towns like Enniscorthy and Aughrim were inundated, there has been a rightful focus on the engineering solutions and why these are taking so long to deliver. Alongside engineering solutions, there must be a renewed commitment to the delivery of nature-based solutions. Let us recall what we mean by this.”
“We can do better than this. Tonight, thousands of people, including me, will get home safely due to the hard work of workers in our public transport companies on an absolutely grim night. We have to recognise that our climate is changing and the employee protections in place at the moment will also have to change. On the point about the graduated warning system, our approach to closing schools and childcare facilities changed when we introduced that system. We have to look at its impacts on workers, particularly those in the most vulnerable areas.”
“If we are not recording these excess deaths, we cannot put in place the measures to protect vulnerable people and workers in times of extreme heat.”
“I thank Unite the Union for putting the spotlight on the issue of the need for policy and legislation addressing protections for workers in extreme weather events. The one point I will add to that of colleagues is the impact of extreme heat. It is hard to make the case about that tonight of all nights, but we know we will have more incidences of extreme heat in our summers. We know this will impact vulnerable people, the young, the elderly and people with underlying conditions. Some of these will be workers. Some will be workers operating in difficult conditions outdoors and people working in agriculture, maybe in overheated warehouses. Right now the Department of Health and HSE do not record data on excess deaths from extreme events or prolonged heat events. That is not the Minister of State's Department, but it has to change.”
“I urge the Minister of State and the Government to look at this approach and to reconsider the consumer pays all approach we have seen adopted in the last year.”
“If we do not put in place the help to support people to make choices that break that cycle of dependence on consumer goods and services that are always open to volatile pricing, people will forever be stuck in this doom loop of ever-rising costs. Those are hard choices to make in the present but they make for a far cheaper and healthier future for all. Speaking of retrofit supports, solar panel grants, electric vehicle grants, sustainable farming supports, childcare supports, and targeted cost-of-living measures, it is all connected, and one smart intervention begets another. These were the guiding principles of our party while in government and it is something we have seen precious little of since.”
“Last month's consumer price index shows that food prices were up 3.9%, with unprocessed foods up a staggering 5.8%, but, again, prices in Ireland, for a combination of reasons, are higher than they are on the Continent, at almost 110% of the EU average according to Eurostat, the third highest in the European Union. People see this in their shopping baskets, especially with meat, dairy and coffee, but we do not see tailored solutions that recognise the unique combination of factors that hit Irish consumers. Targeted cost-of-living supports focused on essentials like groceries would go a long way in helping some of the hardest hit families here. The climate crisis is a giant cost-of-living crisis. The most vulnerable will always be impacted the most.”
“Is it not now the right time to come forward with additional supports on the energy side, with retrofits for renters? If rent costs are going to be reset and increased to market rates, why not take some measure to make the overall cost of renting cheaper while enhancing our building stock and reducing emissions from the housing sector? Deputy Healy's motion rightly focuses on the severe impact on households of grocery inflation, which at the end of last year hit its highest level in two years, lasting well beyond the immediate shock of the inflation crisis and persistently driving up costs for families.”
“It is clear that, had we not had substantial growth in renewables, even with the grid management costs that come with them, Irish household energy costs would today be far higher. I know that is little comfort to people who are already struggling, but this demonstrates the value in driving further forward to bring renewables online to enhance our ability to withstand global energy shocks that we know will be experienced again in the future. As the Minister of State knows, 1 March is the date on which a new regime will come in affecting residential tenancies, which we have spent much of the last two hours discussing. Part of that law will increase security of tenure, with six-year tenancies encouraging longer terms in what the law says will be more stable living situations.”
“So many people and families have been left in a deeply precarious situation following the inflation crisis of recent years. I want to use my limited time to focus on two significant areas of real cost pressure for people, which are food and energy, while of course acknowledging that there are many more. On energy, we have to ask why Irish energy wholesale costs are so much higher than in other European countries. When we look at it, we see that the costs are largely a factor of the kind of fossil fuel that is used. In our case, that is gas. It was the main driver of Irish wholesale electricity costs shooting up in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine and still today accounts for a sizeable proportion of the ultimate household costs.”
“I acknowledge the awful tragedy that we saw in Dublin city centre this afternoon. I join other Deputies in expressing my horror and shock. From what we have seen, we know there has been one fatality and up to three people seriously injured in this event. Our thoughts are with them, their families, the first responders and those in our city's hospitals who are doing everything they can for them. I thank Deputy Healy for tabling this motion and for the opportunity to speak on it. With so many competing issues of real national importance, it is critical that we take every chance we have to focus on an issue that cuts across so much and affects almost everyone, but of course impacts on people with the least means the most. The rising cost of living has been one of the most challenging hallmarks of this decade.”
“Will the Minister of State reassure us safeguards will be put in place to mitigate some of the worst increases that may come about as a result of the market rate reset? Has the Government's model determined the proportion of tenants who will see the steeper ends of the increases? Will additional funding be provided to the local authority cost-rental tenant in situ scheme, which is a measure that has a direct effect in providing an alternative for people? Have measures been put in place to do something to mitigate the short-term pain it is absolutely clear will be endured by many renters as a result of these proposals?”
“Maybe in the Minister's sum-up speech he could tell us exactly how long it will take for supply to increase to a level that would result in what would be considered a normal or sustainable rate of rent inflation. That analysis or projection would be really valuable, because that is the fulcrum upon which this entire experiment turns. That honesty to people in terms of what we are expecting, and how long it is going to take for this gamble to work, is important because housing is at the core of how people plan their entire lives. It is the literal foundation upon which people are able to plan where they go to work or whether they stay at home to care for children, buy two cars or one, go to college, or even whether they think it is worthwhile to stay in Ireland at all.”
“The success of that gamble is fully riding on the ability of large-scale developers and investors to deliver apartments at scale, and those who can afford to live in those apartments be damned, either through purchase or through rental arrangements. There are going to be victims here. There are going to be people and families who experience the hard end of the Government's gamble. They are people who will have to agree to far steeper rents that hit their incomes harder than anything we saw during the inflation crisis. They are people who already have no way out of renting and now will see that only lifeline extinguished. It may be a cohort that the Government parties have judged you can dump on without losing support, but that would be a critical mistake. I assume the Department has attempted to model the impact of these changes.”
“The security of tenure measures would, in isolation, be welcomed. Such measures should have been introduced here ten or 15 years ago to bring Ireland in line with most other European countries. However, in no way can we say that this is an evolution in thinking from the Government parties toward valuing, safeguarding and making viable private renting for people's life cycles in the manner found in countries like Austria, Germany or Denmark. Leaving aside that such a policy would be incredible coming from either of the Government parties, the arrival of secure tenancy rules in the same instrument that, at a stroke, rolls back the key affordability safeguards shows us that the Government thinks of this as more of an experiment or a gamble.”
“The Minister and his colleagues across the Government have invested a lot of their political capital in the success of this Bill. We are here to ask whether it will work. At this point, it is extremely hard to express confidence that it will. When taken as a whole, I see a Bill that is looking to satisfy conflicting policy aims simultaneously, and it is hard to see such an endeavour having a successful end. Worse, the Bill is performing a kind of bait and switch when it comes to the private rental sector. The end result of this will certainly be a serious rollback in terms of rent affordability for thousands of people, for singles, for people sharing and for their families. This will have an impact on disposable income for a huge cohort into the longer term, and will drive more families into homelessness.”
“We have the power in law that makes it easy to bring in those 30 km/h zones across large parts of built-up areas but the decision has been made to make it harder with each local authority undertaking long, arduous processes to deliver what could be a life-saving decision for an area. People raised the Crowe report early last year and issues to do with policing, particularly the focus of An Garda Síochána in regard to roads policing. That really undermined confidence in people, whether they are in the car, on the bike or on foot. It is important that the Minister for justice give us an update on the response to that report.”
“That has been reversed and it will have to continue to try to do that while at the same time bring in its own income. That is not the right focus there. Second, there is the issue of 30 km/h zones in built-up areas. When I was on Fingal County Council, estates were fighting to be part of that pilot because they knew it would bring a greater degree of safety for communities, particularly for children. Somebody hit by a car travelling at 30 km/h has a 90% chance of surviving that crash. When the speed goes up to 60 km/h, there is almost a 100% likelihood that the crash will kill them. That is the difference.”
“I had the opportunity to raise road safety with the Tánaiste earlier this afternoon. I was glad he was able to confirm that the ridiculous notion of a proposed mandatory requirement for helmets for people using a push bike is not going ahead. I welcome his confirmation of that. During that discussion, I also raised some of issues raised at the Joint Committee on Transport's meeting on road safety yesterday. Three key issues were raised by people who represent cyclists but other vulnerable road users as well. First, there is their concern about the U-turn with respect to the Road Safety Authority, RSA. There had been a clear agreement reached in the last Government to separate out that public information element and to let the RSA focus on that.”
“There is real anger about steps that the Government has taken in the past 12 months that are seen as directly damaging to road safety for all vulnerable users but particularly for cyclists.”
“I welcome the Tánaiste's confirmation that there are no proposals for mandatory helmets for cyclists using pushbikes. This would have been hugely damaging to the transition we are seeing and the supports we are seeing for people taking up cycle. We agree on the point of the need to differentiate between pushbikes and the electronically powered vehicles. Some of those vehicles, particularly scooters, are a major driver of brain injuries and many of those are already illegal. Under 16s using them is already a crime. The souped-up scooters are already illegal. The enforcement of those laws is key. Continuing in this spirit of agreement, I ask that the Tánaiste looks closely at what was said at the transport committee meeting yesterday by his former colleague, Ciarán Cannon.”
“Is he aware that mandatory helmets for cyclists is seen as the primary barrier to new people taking up cycling in jurisdictions like Australia where it is in place? Why has the Government chosen to push this unevidenced measure when there are so many other steps it could take to make our roads safer for those of us on a bike and for everyone else?”
“We heard their' frustration at the Government's U-turn on a decision that was made by the previous Government to split the Road Safety Authority to allow it to focus on its safety mandate and they voiced real anger at the Government's decision to delay the introduction of life-saving 30 km/h zones in built-up areas. Here are actual policy proposals, evidence-based, that will make journeys safer for all vulnerable road users, including cyclists, yet the proposal the Government seems to be prioritising is one that puts all the responsibility back on the cyclist, and not on the dangerous road environment we have to negotiate and the big cars that knock us down. IrishCycle.com reports that the Tánaiste is one of the main people pushing mandatory helmets for cyclists on a push bike. I do not know if that is true. Is it true?”
“How would Dublinbikes or Bleeper work if a helmet is mandatory? The ability of a bike to facilitate a simple daily activity is suddenly constrained if merely cycling your bike is criminalised. Of course, helmets are an important part of how cyclists can protect themselves but criminalising the absence of a helmet is basically saying that we are going to reduce cycling deaths and injuries by reducing cycling itself. Yesterday at a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, we heard from cycling organisations about the measures they want to see implemented to make them safer so we do not see 14 cyclists die on our roads this year like we did last year.”
“After the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, the Minister for Transport announced an important measure to ban scrambler bikes in the wake of the tragic death of Grace Lynch. That measure is vitally needed and must come with greater enforcement. From media reports, I understand a second proposal was withdrawn at or before the meeting that would have made helmets and high-vis jackets mandatory for people using e-scooters, e-bikes and ordinary pushbikes. An Garda Síochána would be empowered to fine those without a helmet making this a criminal matter. No EU country makes helmets mandatory for cyclists on a push bike because they know that to criminalise the users of ordinary bikes in this way makes no sense. It would overnight row back the significant progress made over the past ten years in the uptake of cycling.”
“We will be back here because there will be drones in other communities, and that divided opinion - I recognise it is a divided opinion - will be taking place in other communities around Dublin and around the country. I had a few really poor-quality drone puns that I was going to throw into the speech, but I will not subject the House to that at this stage. I appreciate the Deputies’ contributions. This is a matter we will be coming back to. It is serious. It is just touching one community now, but it will become a bigger issue. I recommend that the Government takes a more proactive approach to how it addresses this.”
“Do we want to give a delivery drone dropping a coffee cup the same level of priority in our air as a delivery drone delivering medicine or delivering something to an elderly person, or doing a survey for a piece of infrastructure? That is a conversation, a debate and a discussion we need to have. We need to make decisions on that, and they are not being made at the moment. There is not even a clear pathway in the framework policy about how that big-picture discussion takes place. There are a lot of little bits; for example, the IAA will advise local authorities, which is fantastic. However, that big question of what we want in our skies, and how much of it we want in our skies, is being entirely avoided here. That is a real problem.”
“The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, spoke about us having 12 months for the timed amendment and how the Opposition can hold the Government's feet to the fire. The Minister can bet that I will be doing that because I do not see anything in the response from him that gives me clarity about how we are to address the fundamental issue here. The fundamental issue here is we have not had a proper debate about how much of what happens on the roads should happen in the sky. The Minister of State made a point about people ordering and getting coffee. I agree that happens, but let us have a discussion about to the extent to which we want that as a society.”
“I know no other area of new technology where we are so blasé about rolling back the State and letting things happen. I say this because action 16 of the national policy framework states, "The Irish Aviation Authority will promote processes that allow for the allocation of airspace for experimental and developing UAS operations to be established." This idea of the experiment, this idea of suck it and see, is built into the Government's national policy and I do not know of other areas where new technology is let loose like that. What has happened in Dublin 15 is not something that occurred in a regulatory vacuum. The Government has chosen regulatory vacuum. The Government has chosen to allow experimentation take place.”
“On noise, the focus here is on mitigation. The focus seems to be on us making the devices or drones quieter. New propellers have been put on some of the drones in my area. That is great, but that is not about empowering people who have real concerns and are experiencing noise pollution in their areas with a route or mechanism to address this. Deputy Donnelly and others spoke about the issue of scaling. Right now, there is one company using delivery drones in one part of the city but, in my view, the trend or direction of travel here is that other companies, maybe not food delivery, maybe for entirely different reasons and maybe for valid reasons, will start to look at and invest in drone technology and the State is stepping back and saying it will let this happen and see what happens.”
“I see no reason drone noise cannot be treated in the same way as any other sort of nuisance noise. As for the Minister's line, "We do have a distance to go in respect of fully addressing drone noise before a role for the courts can be considered", "a distance to go" has to be, for me, the euphemism of the day. In terms of what is happening and has happened in the last six months since the framework strategy was published, one such action is the Irish Aviation Authority supporting local authorities and planners to acquire the necessary aviation knowledge about UAS technology, regulation and oversight. The IAA, has already begun to provide this support. Therefore, the IAA is providing some advice to local authorities. That is great, but setting the bar low. It is giving a little bit of advice. I would not be boasting about that.”
“The Minister's speech speaks about the Government being unable to put this into the planning legislation even though there is a planning Bill coming through the House soon that at least part of my proposal could be slotted into. We are told that it might delay the delivery of housing and infrastructure. The written speech says that; in fairness, the Minister took that back. However, it is very frustrating for it to say there is the appropriate legislative vehicle to deal with the planning issue here coming through the House and the Department has taken the call not to put that in it. On the issue of noise pollution, there is a long session here about why we should not be going to the District Court. I agree that the District Court is not the right place to be dealing with any noise pollution issue but that is the law as it is right now.”
“There is one date in the speech provided, that is, in February 2026 the national UAS policy framework monitoring group will meet for the first time. The framework policy was published in August of last year and, six months later, the group overseeing the national framework policy is going to have its first meeting. There is no sense of urgency. There is no sense of even momentum with a six-month delay between when a national framework is created and work starts. The Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, describes it as "a living document" in his speech. It does not strike me there is much life in it right now. People need to get a move on. The Minister's speech is clear about what he and his Department is not going to do, but I am unclear about what is going to happen.”
“The Minister of State has been thrown into the deep end here on drones but I thank him for his contribution. I appreciate the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, being here earlier on and making his own contribution, and hearing mine and those of some of the Deputies. I am grateful to Deputies, from Dublin West and other areas, for addressing this matter. I am not happy with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien's response and I will outline my concerns about it. The first of these is, just like with the framework policy on drones, the lack of timelines, bar one. It is still not clear to me, when I read Deputy O'Brien's speech, when any of this is going to happen. Delivery drones started at scale in March-April 2024. We are 18 months down the line and I still do not see when we will see substantive measures taken.”
“This will happen in more of Dublin and in more of our country, and we need to have a regulatory structure. I was critical of the framework policy that came out in August, mainly because I felt it set out a few nice things but did not put in place timelines to address this, and timelines are crucial. That is why I moved forward with this legislation, because we need to start a concrete debate on how we regulate this technology in the public interest. Residents in Dublin 15, irrespective of their views, whether they find the delivery drones useful or not, want to see that clarity and regulation in the public interest. I look forward to the Minister's response and the contributions from colleagues.”
“Section 6 gives the Short Title of the Bill. It is pretty much Dublin West represented here today. It is somewhat unique in that this is an issue for Dublin West right now. Sometimes when I talk about drones, people are like, "What are you talking about?", but this is a real issue. I said it before, but a massive change has taken place in Dublin West. Our skies are now buzzing with drones and we need to have a national conversation about this. It cannot be just the TDs and the councillors in Dublin 15 going on about it. I have not mentioned the one company involved because for me this is not just about one company but, rather, about national policy. It is one company now; it could well be two, four or many companies very soon delivering different things.”
“Section 5 is a part that I believe addresses a very significant gap in our law at the moment, that is, that members of the public have no legal recourse right now when it comes to the noise impacts of the operation of drones. That is something that is raised with me time and time again. Section 5 amends section 108 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 to allow any person, a local authority or the EPA to make a complaint to the District Court with respect to the emission of noise from certain private or commercially operated drones. This again recognises that the presence of drones in airspace above and around residential areas can have an impact on environmental noise and it provides the public with a remedy about that noise in the same way they have remedies at present about noises coming from other areas.”
“If we understand that the use of the airspace immediately above our neighbourhoods and our residential areas is limited, we have to create a hierarchy in terms of prioritising uses that are in the public interest: medical, emergency, architectural, wildlife, conservation and industrial safety uses. Drones can have very important health and safety uses. Those uses should be prioritised. A prioritisation can also ensure that private commercial operations can take place as long as that is happening in a controlled manner. The new section also provides that a planning authority may designate a use not listed as being in the public interest and the new section requires a planning authority to ensure that the objectives created for the above purposes must be consistent with that national policy statement.”
“Requiring in national law that a policy on a national basis is taken is really important. Section 4 creates a new obligation upon a planning authority to prepare objectives, as part of the making of a development plan, for the effective management of the private and commercial operation of unmanned aircraft systems in the planning authority area. The new section provides that objectives must ensure that the private and commercial use of drones is prioritised in favour of operations in the public interest and provides a list of such operations. Again, this is probably at the heart of the Bill.”
“The term "consistent" is important to ensure that we have a uniform national application of the same considerations where multiple planning authorities are dealing with this. We should not have a different rule for drones in Dublin City Council from that in Cork County Council. That sort of situation will not work. This section is important because it sets out in national law a requirement for a national policy that will be established by the Government and that will be put into the national planning statement. In doing so, it allows that national debate to take place about what the public interest we want is in terms of drone usage. That has to happen. It has not happened yet. This has been done on an ad hoc basis, and that is causing real frustration and confusion.”
“The Bill creates new and mandatory planning regulatory considerations under the Planning and Development Act 2024 with respect to the private and commercial operation of drones, creating an additional consideration for the issuance of the national planning statement and by requiring local authorities to prepare objectives for the management of drone operations. Section 1 just sets out the key interpretation provisions. Section 2 amends section 2 of the Planning and Development Act 2024 to insert a definition of the term "unmanned aircraft systems" into that Act. Section 3 amends section 26 of the Planning and Development Act 2024 to create a new consideration upon the Minister in the issuance of a national planning statement. That is the consistent regulation of the private and commercial operation of drone systems in the public interest.”
“If we are going to see this happen in my home area and in other areas across Dublin and across the country, I believe these questions need to be answered. There are other views on drones. I have been contacted by residents in my area who are supportive and find the service useful, and I absolutely recognise that. That is why getting a balance here is important, but a balance is not achieved by allowing one company or a couple of companies to do what they want and everyone else just has to react to that. That is why the State needs to step in in a legislative manner. I will briefly set out some of the key provisions of my Bill for the record of the House. The Bill provides for the further regulation of private and commercial use of unmanned aircraft systems, commonly referred to as drones.”
“It needs to be proved to me and others that this level of traffic in our skies is not having a negative impact on wildlife. Again, that is why we need have a discussion and a policy on this on a national level where the wider environmental impacts can be teased out. It is not just me raising this. Earlier this week, the attorney general of the state of California joined with 17 other attorneys general from other US states to take a case against the Trump administration because it has significantly increased the volume of delivery drones operating in various states in the United States and reduced the level of regulation. In that case, they are citing environmental concerns as central to the issues they are raising. I do not know the answer to this but I need it to be looked at, and it is not being looked at right now.”
“For example, if a private company, such as a business that operates some sort of noisy manufacturing process to make goods, proposed to open new facility, there would be tight regulation in terms of the level of noise and when noise would be allowed. The community would be able to involve itself in that decision through our normal planning process. It is unclear as to whether such opportunities exist in respect of drones. Again, that is central to why I am bringing forward the Bill. I also want to address the environmental concerns that have been raised with me. For example, BirdWatch Ireland has said that drones can have detrimental effects on nesting birds. We are now seeing drones operate at scale in Dublin 15. There are hundreds of journeys every week. I will be very honest.”
“Many people have told me that the frequency with which drones are seen and heard above their homes has increased as the service becomes more popular. It cannot simply be the case that people are told, "That is it, they are here now, so get over it". Local communities have a right to democratically shape and influence how their environment is used, how that changes and how those changes impact on them. That is the cornerstone of our democratic planning process. However, there are questions about the extent to which the operation of drones is even covered by the planning process in the first place. That is one of the central issues I am trying to address in the Bill.”
“Balanced with the public good, the right of people to the reasonable quiet enjoyment of their homes, gardens and air space immediately above them, we can get the regulation of this new technology right. What are people telling me about the impact of drones? Right now, it is clear that Dublin 15 and Dublin west are being viewed as a kind of test case and large-scale experiment. It is the first urban area in Ireland to experience large-scale drone delivery. People living in Dublin 15 have raised with me and other Deputies and councillors a wide range of issues relating to airborne delivery drones, including concerns about the noise from the machines, their safety, the planning status of drone bases, privacy issues - as we know drones are fitted with cameras – and their impact on wildlife.”
“It is hard to see a direct historical comparison for the evolution we are seeing. The advent of the car is probably the closest thing in terms of autonomously operated vehicles that have the potential to proliferate in an environment. Today, nobody would question the very strict and extensive regulation that we have around car use when it comes to safety, noise, the environment, air quality and ensuring adequate space for walkers, cyclists and public transport. No one has a problem with the extensive regulation around cars and they are still able to fulfil their potential to move us and our stuff around. In the same way, regulation around drones will allow the use of drones to continue. What I propose today should not be seen as some sort of hindrance to innovation, as some might argue.”
“It recognises that every new technology and evolution must be regulated in the public interest. Regulation to guarantee safety is critical, but that is the basic minimum we should expect. We have to ensure that the operation of drones works for everyone in our communities. The potential of drones and unmanned aerial systems is significant. They are an innovation that Ireland can and should harness. A major change is happening in our society right now. Hundreds of journeys that up to this point took place on our roads are now being transferred into the skies over our homes and gardens. Many members of the public are asking how many drones flying over their house or gardens is too many. Up to this point, the State has refused to engage in a meaningful way in that particular conversation.”
“I want to be clear that in respect of drones and unmanned aircraft in general, there is clear potential for this use of technology to serve us well. This is an evolution in how we transport certain goods and it is something for which we should be ready. I am bringing forward the Bill because, to date, the State has approached the issue of drones from the wrong angle. The regulation has been based on an air traffic control consideration. The public interest, including, for example, the interests of people in Dublin 15 whose air spaces now host frequent drone deliveries, has not come into the regulatory structure to date. The air traffic control approach might have worked ten years ago, but we are dealing with an entirely different set of circumstances today. That is simply what my Bill is trying to do.”
“I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I appreciate the Minister coming to the House to discuss the Bill. I am pleased to speak to my first Private Members' Bill. I note the Government has opted to delay the Bill using a timed amendment for 12 months. I am disappointed in that approach. I believe it would be better to allow the Bill to be debated in more in depth on Committee Stage. I will be the first to say that improvements can be made to the Bill, but Committee Stage would have been a good time to hear input from the Government, academics, experts and communities, including residents who have strong views on the use of technology. Nevertheless, I appreciate the Minister being here and look forward to hearing his contribution.”