I move amendment No. 1: To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following: Dáil Éireann resolves that the Regulation of Drones Bill 2025 be read a second time on this day 12 months, to allow for the actions set out in the National Policy Framework for Unmanned Aircraft Systems and agreed by Government to be progressed and to allow for a full examination of the legal and policy implications of the Bill's provisions to be undertaken. I thank Deputy O'Gorman for tabling this Bill. It is a very useful part of the debate. It is pretty much Fingal representatives in this room, with the exception of the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, but it is an issue. We are one of the first countries to have brought forward a policy framework on this. I will use the opportunity here to inform the House of the progress we are making there and where I see this going further. I acknowledge Deputy O'Gorman's work on this Bill and on this issue and, particularly, his engagement on this issue. This is not the first time he has raised it, and other colleagues who are here in the House, including Deputy Currie, have raised this issue on a number of occasions directly with me as well. In particular, it is very important that the concerns and views of local residents and communities impacted by the increase of drone usage are represented here, and it is right and proper that they are articulated here in the Dáil. The Bill deals with planning and noise considerations arising from commercial operators. It seeks to provide for the regulation of commercial and private drones in the public interest. It proposes a series of amendments to the Planning and Development Act 2024 and the EPA Act 1992. To summarise, it creates new obligations on the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and on planning authorities to have regard to the objective of the regulation of drones in the public interest of private and commercial drones in a national planning statement, as Deputy O'Gorman has outlined, and in development plans, respectively. It also would see noise from a drone addressed as a nuisance, allowing complaints to the District Court by any individual or local authority or the EPA. The Government understands the background to these proposals, and I fully recognise the Deputy's intentions in the preparation of this Bill. The use of drones for commercial and other purposes has grown substantially over the past decade. The growth has been facilitated by the publication of a suite of EU aviation safety regulations that promote the safe and secure development of the drone sector throughout Europe. Drones are now accessible to a broad range of users and their use is becoming commonplace. As the technology has evolved, drone use has presented significant opportunities in both commercial and public domains. Drones present exciting opportunities for businesses and the public sector to boost productivity, improve service provision and improve safety. In the Topical Issue I answered just prior to this, I addressed the mapping of our electricity network across the island, which was undertaken predominantly by drones. Already in Ireland, drones are being rolled out across services, including in emergency response, inspections of dangerous buildings and sites by local authorities, in environmental monitoring and in goods delivery. However, the rapid pace of drone innovation and commercialisation has also created significant challenges and generated real and genuine concerns among communities, particularly around issues of noise, intrusion and privacy. While there is a comprehensive regulatory framework in place for drone operations, from an aviation safety perspective, the rapid expansion of drone operations has resulted in gaps and uncertainty in certain areas. While the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, which is the civil aviation regulator, oversees the implementation of the EU drone safety regulations and standards to ensure safe drone operations, there is a recognised demand for clarity and guidance on the roles and responsibilities of public bodies more generally in relation to, in particular, high-frequency drone operations. Recognising that the impact of a growing drone sector needed further consideration, the Government included this in the programme for Government and a commitment to finalising and publishing a policy framework to guide high-level strategic planning and development of the drone sector in Ireland. The framework aims to support growth and innovation, while ensuring safe and secure operations and managing environmental and other concerns. In 2025, we saw significant progress made in delivering this commitment and the national policy framework for unmanned aircraft systems was agreed by the Government and published by me in August 2025. The foundation of the policy framework is cross-government engagement. As has been outlined by the proposer of the Bill, a lot of this sits within the planning authorities but in planning legislation as well. It is important to say our strategy was also informed by public and industry consultation. The policy framework sets out a number of cross-government actions that aim to address the concerns in relation to increasing drone usage and operations in balance with the realisation of the economic and societal benefits from the emerging drone sector. This will include ensuring that appropriate authorities have the required regulatory powers and that they have mechanisms in place to ensure the views of all stakeholders, very importantly, including residents, are taken into account. It also seeks to identify and address any policy, regulatory or legislative gaps that may have arisen due to the increased expansion of drone operations. This will be done in a holistic and balanced way. The policy framework contains actions to assist the planning community and local authorities to manage the integration of UAS technology into communities and how to take local concerns on board, and they must be taken on board. One such action is the IAA 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. In dealing with noise from drones, there are a number of mitigating measures, technological and operational, that can be undertaken to minimise the noise nuisance from drones. I have experienced this myself in the Dublin West area and I certainly take the point. The point Deputy O'Gorman has made in relation to noise is a very valid one. Mitigating measures also include spatial planning through airspace management by the designation of UAS geographical zones and through input into the planning system where planning permissions may be required. The policy framework provides for the development of transparent processes and procedures for the designation of UAS geographical zones, including for the purpose of protecting privacy and, very importantly, dealing with environmental concerns. The structures and actions set out in the policy framework should be allowed to be established and implemented, so that any regulatory gaps can be identified and addressed. I see the Deputy's legislation as forming part of that. The implementation of the policy framework, while being led by my Department, will very much rely on those cross-government structures and the continuation of engagement and support from sister Departments, agencies, the drone sector and, very importantly, the public. Implementation is under way. The national UAS policy framework monitoring group, which will support and monitor the progress of the implementation of the policy framework and the delivery of actions, has been established. The first meeting of the monitoring group is scheduled to happen on 18 February 2026, just next month. As Minister for Transport, it is my responsibility to lead the overall response and ensure co-ordination across Government. As the Deputy's Bill illustrates, many of the issues that require consideration in respect of drone operations are within the responsibility of other Government Departments, and that is why that co-ordination within the framework is critical. The provisions of the Bill do affect legislation that is under the remit of the Department of housing, as well as my other Department, the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. Following engagement at official level with both those Departments, initial examination indicates that proposed legislative amendments would present implementation difficulties. The Department of housing, for example, is of the opinion that the proposed additional consideration for the issuance of national planning statements and the requirement for local authorities to prepare objectives for the management of UAS operations in their development plans may be overly prescriptive. The purpose of development plans is to provide an integrated overall planning approach. It is a priority for Government to ensure the implementation of the Planning and Development Act 2024 and, indeed, the revised national planning framework. This work is central to tackling issues such as housing supply and infrastructure development. Any changes to plan-making requirements at this point, before implementation of the UAS policy framework is further progressed, could serve to undermine the clarity sought by local authorities and could delay this important work. I know that is not the Deputy's intention. The House can be reassured drone bases do constitute "development" and existing planning legislation already applies to them. We have seen a specific example of that working through in Fingal County Council. We need to allow some time for further policy development and implementation. The proposed amendment of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 to treat noise from a drone as a nuisance may be problematic. I do not want to be overly negative about it. There is complexity within the process but I think that needs to be looked at within the framework itself. In many jurisdictions, including Ireland, existing environmental protection legislation specifically exempts aircraft noise from local authority regulation. A drone at the moment comes within the definition of "aircraft". Nuisance law often relies on individual complaints and legal action, which is an inefficient and impractical way to manage the potentially high frequency of transient drone flyovers expected from widespread commercial operations. I think people would agree with that, so we need a more holistic approach. A proactive system is needed instead of a reactive, individual complaints-based system. Complaints and feedback are important. I am not saying they are not but when we look to implementing the framework itself, we have to have a better way to be able to manage it. The District Court could obviously see a significant increase in noise complaints about drones, and I do not think the courts should necessarily be the place to be clogged up with these complaints. We do have a distance to go in respect of fully addressing drone noise before a role for the courts can be considered. Deputy O'Gorman's Bill is very important and the engagement from Members in government and across the House is helpful. I am committed to moving forward and working with the monitoring group and the national UAS policy framework. I believe this will be the key driver for bringing forward regulations, and further regulations, which will be needed. Like the Deputy, I do not intend to try to restrict the technological growth in this sector, and there are great technological advancements. There are certainly advantages to drone usage as well, with reduced traffic where we have some deliveries and other things that would otherwise be carried by vehicles, such as cars, vans and trucks, but, and I do say "but", there are genuine concerns from communities that have been impacted who never believed their homes would be overflown by this type of aircraft. There is, in my view, a noise nuisance. We do want to support the growth and development of the sector in an appropriate, sustainable and balanced way. In my response to the Deputy, I already outlined, as he did, to be fair to him, when he introduced his Bill, some of the benefits of drones being introduced. We can see this when we look at survey work and work in relation to wildlife protection, derelict buildings and the mapping, assessment and monitoring of our grid across the country. What we were able to do in a matter of weeks would have previously taken months and years. There is also a particular issue here as well, though. I have met professional drone operators but I have not met the company that has been referenced here although not mentioned. We also need to look at a framework for the licensing of professional drone operators because there are many unlicensed drone operators operating on a commercial basis. That means there is not a level playing pitch for those who are properly registered with the regulator and pay the fees associated with that. The transport committee and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage are going to have significant input into this. I firmly believe the framework is the way forward. I have proposed a timed amendment because, while the Deputy can hold the Government's feet to the fire on this, we need time to further the implementation and to establish the framework committee. We have done that. The committee is in place and will meet on 18 February. We can work through these measures together. Within that 12-month period, the Deputy will be able to assess the progress being made. That is why I did not want to reject this Bill outright. It is a very useful contribution to the debate and to bringing about a balanced approach to the drone sector along with our communities. I thank the Deputy for proposing this Bill. I also thank colleagues for raising matters in this area prior to the debate. It is an important matter. That is why I ensured I was here myself to take the debate on the Bill. I hope that demonstrates the importance the Government and I put on this issue.

Sentiment score: 0.25