I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Air Pollution (Amendment) Bill 2025. This is legislation we have been promised for a fair couple of years and attempts to respond to a very real public health challenge that often does not get as much attention as it should. It also updates a framework that we have not kept pace with in terms of the scale of the problem across the country. The EPA air quality in Ireland 2023 report reminds us that air pollution, according to those figures, causes an estimated 1,700 premature deaths every year, needless and preventable deaths as others in the Chamber have outlined. Our legislation is a little bit archaic at this stage. The Bill strengthens the Air Pollution Act 1987 and modernises, on paper, enforcement in line with the commitments set out in the 2023 national clean air strategy. It gives local authorities new powers for fixed payment and compliance notices, enhanced authority to regulate the sale and distribution of solid fuels and the ability to seize non-compliant products. All of that is positive on paper. As an Opposition TD who wants to be constructive rather than overtly critical, though, I also want to point out that the road to hell is paved with good intentions in so many pieces of legislation. We can have all of the strong wording we like, but if we want the Bill to deliver cleaner air and healthier communities and society, we must ensure the enforcement system is fit for purpose. The evidence shows that, right now, the capacity is uneven, in some cases less than optimal, and under real strain. The best example is in my constituency, where the EPA's 2022 local authority environmental enforcement performance report, published in 2023, reported on various local authorities. Regarding my home area of South Dublin County Council, the EPA found that while the council ticked a lot of the boxes and met the required standards in many areas, it also identified specific weaknesses that were directly related to the Bill, including a reliance on an archaic and ageing compliant management system, backlogs of open environmental cases and the need for improvements in the enforcement of solid fuel regulations. The regulations bit I get. The staffing and training levels are different issues. They will show whether the Bill will work in practice. I understand there are five litter wardens in south Dublin trying to police the area. Such work is pointless without staff. The Bill is not related to litter wardens, but it is related to enforcement. South Dublin is not alone, in fairness. The EPA has showed a pattern of staffing capacity constraints across multiple local authorities. That is why the Bill needs to be strengthened. I mentioned staffing and training. IT systems and inspection capacity are also necessary. Without all of these things, the Bill will be a paper tiger. In that context, I want to emphasise the need to revisit the level of fines and what constitutes an effective deterrent. The Bill is good on emphasising proportionate penalties and one can understand that at one level. However, our State has a history of non-compliance on a range of issues. We have to ensure that the fines are meaningful enough to deter illegal fuel sales. If penalties are lower than the profit margins associated with selling non-compliant fuels, it is pointless legislation. Enforcement data from the EPA shows that repeat non-compliance is an ongoing challenge, so agencies have to get real teeth. Enforcement is only one side of the equation. As my colleagues referenced, the other angle is affordability and practical support for our hard-pressed systems. The SEAI national heat study in 2022 pointed out that many households, in particular lower income households, relied on solid fuels because they had a lack of affordable alternatives. This is why retrofitting for public housing is so important. If we strengthen enforcement without strengthening the supports, all we are doing is placing a further burden on those least able to absorb it. The Bill should be accompanied by a comprehensive package of measures that, in fairness, are already directly relevant to the latest fuel crisis. We are dealing with an emergency situation right now. We had a debate on the motion of confidence where the Government was, rightly, accused of not responding quickly enough and not doing enough. In the medium term, we need proper strategies in place to help people reduce their fuel bills and move on to alternatives. We need expanded retrofitting and heating system supports, targeted in particular at those at risk of fuel poverty. The warmer homes scheme national retrofit programme is important. The SEAI progress report shows, unfortunately, that demand exceeds capacity and waiting times are way too long. If we want households to move away from smokey fuels, we must make cleaner alternatives accessible. We also need supports for businesses impacted by the Bill. We need public information campaigns that talk about the damage caused by air pollution. On weather apps, I have often seen that the air quality in some rural areas is worse than in Dublin because of the burning of certain types of smokey fuel. We need to show how that has a direct impact on people's health. The EPA's annual air quality reports highlight the need for greater public awareness, especially in areas where pollution spikes in the winter. We should also consider establishing an enforcement support unit. Other countries have a hybrid model whereby local authorities carry out the day-to-day enforcement and a national inspectorate supports investigations and ensures consistency in enforcement and compliance. This might be valuable for councils like south Dublin where the EPA audits have identified the capacity challenges I mentioned. We should have better annual public reporting by local authorities of inspection fines, compliance rates and enforcement outcomes to compare by local authority on an annualised basis. While the Bill is a welcome and necessary step in tackling pollution from mainly solid fuels, we cannot ignore the fact that air quality in Ireland is not just damaged by home heating alone. The air quality in Ireland 2023 report points out that alongside solid fuel burning, transport emissions and industrial activity are major contributors of harmful pollutants like nitrogen dioxide and fine particulates. Vehicle emissions, in particular from diesel cars, vans and heavy duty vehicles, are well known as a source of urban air pollution. Localised hotspots in urban areas need to be diminished near busy roads. I am thinking of the M50, N4, and N7, which fall outside the scope of the Bill. If we are serious about clean air, we need complementary legislation that addresses the issues. Low-emission zones, stronger standards overall and better investment in electric vehicles and public transport alternatives are broad issues. While not related to the Bill, smaller industrial and commercial sites are another area. The big-ticket companies are addressed, but some smaller sites fall through the cracks. We need to strengthen oversight and improve monitoring technology. While the Bill strengthens enforcement on solid fuels, we have to have parallel action on transport and industry. I do not have time to go into the massive investment required in electric vehicles and giving people the ability to charge electric vehicles outside of their homes or adjacent to them using a domestic tariff. The more electric vehicles are on the road, the less pollution we would have. It is an absolute no-brainer. It is also a no-brainer in terms of rising fuel costs if we can get homegrown renewable energy stored properly and converted to green hydrogen in some cases. I welcome the Bill. It is just one Bill but important legislation. Complementary legislation is essential to protect public health and meet our obligations. In summary, if we want to succeed, we have to match enforcement powers with enforcement capacity. We have to match the regulations with support for households and businesses. The legislation has to be strong enough to do that. We need complementary supports. In general terms, I welcome the Bill.

Sentiment score: 0.20