2026-01-29

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

I thank Deputy O'Gorman for publishing this Bill and for the work that has gone into it. I have consistently argued for a balanced approach on this matter. I want to see innovation and the deployment of drone technology but I also want to see effective regulation and enforcement of that regulation. There are politicians in the area who just want an end to the drones. That is fine but I am not in that camp. I recognise the benefits and potential benefits of drone technology but I believe there must be practical and implementable safeguards for communities. I still believe that can be achieved. Communities, planning authorities and businesses should be engaged with to build an effective and workable regulatory framework. Enterprises, especially those with ambitious plans for global expansion, should be up for that. I welcome the publication of the national policy framework and want to see it prioritised and progressed. Making regulations and enforcing them is a matter for the Government. We have seen what happens when innovations, for example, e-scooters, come in without a robust regulatory framework and enforcement measures. The Government must do more. Innovating and operating responsibly in compliance with the law is a matter for business. I welcome the fact that a business operating in the community is continuing to innovate by investing in new propeller systems to address noise impacts. However, at the same time, it must also ensure it is fully compliant with all aspects of regulation and the law, which includes the local planning code. I support innovation and the development of a new regulatory framework. All businesses must comply with those rules in their operations. I note the Bill requires local authorities to prepare objectives for the management of drones. We all know that national policy and local policy need to be more joined up. I am not sure how this Bill addresses that gap. With regard to noise, I agree there needs to be a complaints mechanism but in order for that to happen, there needs to be agreement on appropriate noise levels for residential areas. Fingal County Council granted a temporary three-year trial at Blanchardstown shopping centre for a drone delivery service. The planning officer noted that the applicant stated that this was a trial period to examine whether the proposal would be acceptable. In reference to noise, the chief executive's order states that the temporary nature of the proposal will enable potential impacts to be monitored more fully. The fact that the trial is coming to an end should focus the minds of those who want to show that noise can be addressed with mechanisms to measure it. It should also focus the minds of those who want to ensure a balance can be found.

I welcome the Bill from Deputy O'Gorman and the opportunity to again speak on this issue. It is a really important issue for Dublin West but it will also have an impact right across the country. It is interesting that it comes this week in light of the scrambler issue. I have raised the issue of Garda use of drones. Gardaí have been trained in the use of drones. I have been asking about this since 2021. An Garda Síochána has drones and gardaí have been trained in their use since 2023. However, they are not being used because regulations from An Garda Síochána are still awaited. There were legislative issues but these were cleared up by the Minister, who said there were none. It has gone back to An Garda Síochána and now it seems regulations are needed. There is just confusion about this across the board. Businesses do not seem to be confused about what they think they can do, however. This is a real example of the Government not getting its act together with regard to new technologies. We are going to see this on a monthly basis with the development of AI technology. We are going to be scrambling to try to deal with things literally every week. I live just down the road from Millennium Park, where the drone take-off zone is located. To be honest, when some of this was developed three years ago, I was intrigued. I walked the dog there pretty much every day - I still walk in that park - to see what was going in there. We saw how it was being developed and we saw drones. I was genuinely interested to see how this would work and the impact it would have on the community. I knew it was a trial period and wanted to see how it would develop. It would be untrue to say there is either unanimous opposition to this or unanimous support for it. There are very mixed feelings in Dublin 15 about its operation and impact. We were waiting to see what the impact would be in a couple of years. It was clear that noise was going to be the big impact. I simply do not accept the drone operators' views on the impact of noise as drones hover over your house. Anybody who has seen or experienced it will tell you that the noise of the drone as it drops off the package is unacceptable. To be fair, when you are walking your dog and the drone is at its peak height, you can hear it but it is not massively significant. It can be a little bit annoying but the impact is not as big as it is when a delivery is being made to your door or the door of someone else nearby. What most people are really concerned about and cannot get their heads around is the scaling of this. What is it going to look like? At the moment, there are five drones operating from Millenium Park. They can do a delivery every couple of minutes so, in an hour, five drones could make a couple of hundred deliveries. What will it look like when there are hundreds or thousands of drones in the sky? There is no doubt that other companies will look at this and say it is a very cheap and effective way to deliver products. It will not just be coffee and food. It will be small packages and deliveries. We see the development of these technologies in the war in Ukraine. We see the size of some of the drones and what they are used for. Some of these packages will probably be huge. There are hundreds of van drivers, delivery drivers and Deliveroo workers. All of those companies that currently deliver are going to see this as an opportunity to get rid of human beings delivering packages. They will see it as a way to operate much more effectively. I would invite anyone who does not know what we are talking about to come see. I was out canvassing a couple of months ago and we had comrades down from Belfast. They were looking at the drones above them asking what was going on. We told them it was coffee being delivered or someone getting their lunch or breakfast delivered. They were absolutely flabbergasted and could not believe it. Not everybody is aware of this but it is coming into every community and it is something that will be a huge issue for people. Another issue is privacy. For people who do not understand, when the drone goes over a person's property to make a delivery, a camera switches on. It looks down at where the square is and when it sees that nobody is there, it drops the package. I understand the company states this is not recorded but we know from previous history, and from our own WhatsApp groups and social media, that people take screenshots and videos from various computers. I have a real worry. People should have the right to be in their own garden and expect the privacy of their own garden. This should be expected. At the moment, I do not think people really trust that this is happening with the drone deliveries. Certainly, as it goes into the future, it will be a deep concern for people. I welcome the debate and the moves to regulate this. I have read the framework and looked at the framework. Unfortunately, there are no timelines on it. We do not know. The people living with it in the here and now, the people who are experiencing this in Dublin 15, cannot wait for another year, year and a half or two years. We know the company tried to open another two zones and ran into planning issues. We know it is pressing forward. I do not think we can wait, and certainly given the advancement of the technology, we certainly cannot wait for the Government. It is really disappointing to see this happen to another Bill brought by the Opposition. The Government constantly asks us to bring forward our solutions. Every time something happens in here, we are told to bring forward our solutions and that the Government will listen to us. Deputy O'Gorman has brought forward a solution and what has the Government done? It has kicked it down the road for another 12 months. It is really disappointing. The impact will not be in the Minister of State's constituency. It was previously but then it moved to our constituency. It will be in every constituency. We need to move fast to ensure people's right to their gardens and their privacy, their right not to have the noise these drones cause and their right not to have the nuisance they cause. I am not opposed to drone technology. It is another piece of technology that is here. It would be foolish to say we can ban this type of technology or get rid of it but we have to be able to regulate it. We have to make sure the concerns of our communities are not undermined by the desire to ensure businesses such as these drone delivery companies take precedence over our communities. It is disappointing that the Bill is being kicked down the road. We are going to be coming back to this time and again. As time goes on, the Chamber will get fuller of people who have concerns about drone deliveries in our communities. I ask that the Government act soon.

We have been the experimental lab in Dublin 15 for this technology. I thank the TDs from outside Dublin West and I will be absolutely frank. It was only when it was spoken about that this technology would be going into other areas that immediately people kicked up about it. We have been suffering this for a year and a half. It was introduced with no opposition. It was welcomed in by the Minister, Deputy Chambers, who is a TD for the area. Some people raised it at local council level, trying to get media attention on it. They put it on the council agenda. Deputy Gannon raised it in here as a Topical Issue one day and I raised it. Then Dundrum happened and 200 people showed up to a meeting there. Fair play to Dundrum; the people said to hang on a second and that they were not having it. The company had to have some level of consultation there. This was a turning point last summer. I will give my position on where we should go with this. The Bill is quite minimal. I support the provisions in it but it is far from dealing with the issue. We have had no debate on the impact of this very intrusive technology, which is completely and utterly wrong. It was allowed to happen by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in particular. There was no consent sought from the communities that had to endure it. A couple of comments have been made about the noise. It has been said that it is like the death of peace and quiet but this is not the case for everyone. I do not hear the noise as much as other residents would but it is not about taking a poll to see what the temperature is and going with that. If it impacts on a minority of people, that is enough and it should not be allowed to do this. There is one company, Manna, that has upped the ante and taken on Deliveroo. What about when other companies, such as Amazon or Google, start to use this? We will have an M50 in the sky. The only other country where this has happened and there has been a community response is Australia. The community in Bonython protested and saw off the drones. To make it clear, because it is a bit jaded to say some TDs do not like technology and we are Luddites, we do not just welcome technology for the sake of technology. It is about how technology impacts on people. A number of people in academia are very opposed to this. There was a public meeting that was attended by other TDs here. Everyone knows how hard it is to get people to a meeting and there were 250 people in the Crowne Plaza hotel, on a cold enough night, who were very concerned about the impact this was having. We all agree that drones can be used amazingly for medical issues, topography, geography and emergency situations such as delivering defibrillators. This is what they should primarily be used for. I am in favour of regulation where we outline the uses of drones. I do not think they should be used for commercial or fast-food delivery in highly built-up residential areas. I do not see that as being essential, not compared to the scale of the impact it is having on people. It is not about just opposing technology. The effect of persistent noise on people is very damaging to their health. We know this from all the studies. Dr. Ciara Bracken-Roche from Maynooth University spoke at the meeting. I also had a very good meeting with Professor Julia Powles, who is a professor of law and technology in Australia. She has written a lot about this and the impact that Google drones had there. There is a lot of questioning of this technology. Primarily, it is communities getting organised for themselves that has made the difference. I do not have time to go into it but Manna has been operating disgracefully in Dublin West. It has three bases and two of them did not have any planning permission. The rules do not seem to apply. In fact, it is quoted in the newspapers as saying the planning regulations had not caught up with it. The rules do not apply to it. Due to community opposition, this has been pushed back on two of the sites and the other will come up for renewal shortly. I imagine there will be opposition to it. The reason is that we all agree it is great having technology, but not when it means constant noise. There is a privacy issue also and this has been proved. A French company came over and did excellent work whereby it got one and showed how it worked. A photograph is taken of the site where the package will be dropped - the package is a burger or, mainly, a coffee - but the drone is taking pictures of other back gardens as well. This was shown in the work. Someone out in their back garden should not have a company with a drone taking a photograph of them.

We would prefer if Deputy Coppinger did not mention any company that is not here and cannot defend itself. Others have not done it, so it would be great if Deputy Coppinger could also not mention company names because they are not here to defend themselves.

Does the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach mean companies like Manna Drones? That is the company that is operating this system.

I know, but other Deputies have refrained from doing that so it would be very helpful. It is because the company is not here to defend itself. I ask that the Deputy refrain from doing that.

In fairness, the company has testified at Oireachtas committees. It is perfectly out there. A representative of that company is quoted in today's paper so it is a bit silly to say we cannot talk about the company. In any case, it is important to show people how the company has operated without permission. I am assuming the Minister of State does not think it is okay to just breach planning permission and that people should go through the planning process. The Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, said there were gaps. There are not gaps; it is just a Wild West situation where these people can do what they want to do. We all agree with drone technology for certain uses, but the impact it is having is clear in the example from a resident who wrote to me. Beyond the serious privacy and safety concerns, persistent drone noise is disruptive and it undermines the quiet, residential character of their neighbourhood. It adds yet another layer of stress to daily life and reflects a broader problem - the growing incursion of tech companies into our communities and lives without any democratic oversight or meaningful accountability. It is about profit. Drone delivery of fast food and consumer goods is not a public necessity. That sums it up. Feedback was sought by a resident in Castleknock through a Whatsapp group. The replies were as follows: I worry about the environmental impact ... The frequency of flights has noticeably increased ... There was a close encounter with a bird last week ... The presence of drones makes outdoor meals and dining uncomfortable ... Why weren't we properly consulted? ... The noise echoes in our cul-de-sac ... My autistic child finds the noise overwhelming ... My elderly parents find it overwhelming ... The drones passed directly over a family picnic ... This is not what I signed up for. There are so many messages about the feeling of being under surveillance and of having absolutely no say. Drone Action in Dublin 15 is a group of residents who got together and produced a newsletter. As TDs, we are always giving out newsletters and the feedback we get is generally very minimal. Drone Action sent out 5,000 newsletters and got back 300 responses. They asked for people who are interested in a no-fly zone over their house because representatives of the company operating this currently told the transport committee it would respect that. So 300 replied to this, which that is a huge rate of feedback. These are not just moaning Minnies, as this company tries to portray them as. It is very disparaging towards local residents and it is saying this is politically orchestrated, when the person running it is also very political themselves and regularly shares posts about Trump, military stuff and so on. The key point is that the communities themselves must be the final arbiters of this. Community assent has to be sought for this technology. We need a law whereby commercial drone delivery is not allowed in very built-up residential areas or for commercial fast food. There are occasions where food might need to be delivered, which is no problem in outlying or isolated areas, but it is too disruptive. Given there are one or two companies doing it now, what it will be like when there are more companies doing it? There are also employment issues. They are putting people like delivery drivers and riders out of jobs. The economic impact is always talked about from the drone base. They have to be gotten to the drone base. The products are often driven to the drone base. It is not environmentally clean either.

I thank Deputy O'Gorman for bringing forward this really important Bill. In relation to naming companies in this Chamber, I was given out to about that recently. These companies are not individuals. They are not private individuals. They are big enough and bold enough to defend themselves, so I do not know whether we need to look at our rules on that. We should, in this House, be able to call out companies who are already-----

They appeared in committee as well.

As Deputy Coppinger said, they are before the committees, they are in the papers, and they are big and bold enough to defend themselves.

I am giving Deputies the knowledge that we are not supposed to name people in the Chamber. It is for the protection of the Deputies under Dáil privilege.

I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach. I was not having a go at the Chair.

I know. I am the messenger today.

I am the first speaker this evening from outside of Dublin 15 and it has been noted that there are a couple of us here from outside the area. This is coming for us all. That is why I am here, and I am sure it is why Deputy Gibney is here. We have seen plans for Dundrum and elsewhere around Dublin. There should be a certain urgency to getting this right so that we nip the issues in the bud that we have seen arise in Dublin 15 and west Dublin and that we get it right quickly. As Deputy Gorman and others have set out earlier, we do need a balanced approach to drones. We have to be open to new technology and new developments and all of that, but we cannot be blind to the potential harms they bring including, as Deputy Coppinger noted, the potential for displacement of jobs. I will focus on the communities that have had their real concerns around drone usage just ignored for years. We urgently need to see proper regulation and this Bill would be a vital step forward. The last two years have seen parts of Blanchardstown and the surrounding areas become the Wild West of Dublin with planning permission sidestepped as a drone company claimed it was running a trial period. It is just not right that residents in Dublin 15 have been treated as guinea pigs while drone bases were established without planning permission and the Government essentially turning a blind eye. Just yesterday it was reported that the number of drone deliveries had surpassed 250,000 with more than 60,000 flights in Dublin 15 since commencing operations there two years ago. The measures in the Bill are basic, common-sense regulations that should have been in place before these machines ever took flight. Amending the Planning and Development Act 2024 through this legislation will hopefully force the Government to finally layout a national drone policy with similar statements in each council's local development plans. It would also allow for noise pollution complaints to be taken to the District Court on drones just as is the case for other sources of noise pollution. This is not about stifling innovation or limiting people's choice or convenience; it is about taking the sensible steps we need to make sure guardrails and safeguards are put in place to make sure that new technology like this is serving the best interests of our local communities. Of course, there may be benefits to the use of drones like this, but it needs to be accompanied by strong and effective regulation at both local and national levels. I pay tribute to the work of my Labour Party colleagues, Councillors John Walsh and Mary McCamley, who have recognised the great public concern this issue is causing in their communities as have the Deputies speaking here today. Over 1,500 people signed a community petition they launched calling for regulation of drones in Dublin 15. There is huge concern out there in the community. There are genuine concerns around noise, the unlimited frequency of flights, privacy and the impact on the environment, and this all has to be addressed. Ministers seem to have so far ignored public concerns while quietly facilitating the expansion of drone delivery services. Local councils need stronger support based on legislation to require and enforce rules on noise, privacy and environmental impact. There is no national or local regulation around the establishment of drone bases, frequency of flights or flight paths and that is just not acceptable. It effectively means that regulation of noise cannot hope to succeed and there is not regulation of the number or route of flights during the day. What is more, is that three of the four drone bases set up in Dublin 15 were established without any planning permission. The drone company effectively treated planning as an optional extra. Local communities were denied any input in the establishment of drone operations in their area. We have also seen serious concerns among local communities over the Government's national policy framework for unmanned aircraft systems, which was finally launched in August 2025 after a number of years of stalling. The framework is strongly focused on promoting commercial opportunity for drones and pays only lip service to genuine public concerns. The Government's strategy, which envisages a series of working groups to look at key issues further has barely left the drawing board and is lagging woefully behind the rapid expansion of drone companies. It includes hardly any specifics at all on how to address excessive noise from drones, how to manage unrestricted frequency of flights by drone companies and how to monitor the environmental impact of drones, especially in relation to wildlife. Deputy Donnelly referred to colleagues of his coming to Dublin and hearing the noise of the drones. I have been with friends in Castleknock. You do not appreciate until you are there how intrusive and noisy these machines are, how disruptive they will be to family life if you have kids in the garden and how exposed you feel when they fly over you. It is a serious disruption so we cannot go on treating residents across a swathe of our capital city as subjects of an experiment. No further expansion of drone delivery services should be permitted before a safe, sustainable drone traffic management system is fully established and independent research is conducted to assess the impacts of drones in terms of noise, privacy and the environment. Meaningful action to prevent noise, address concerns about privacy and ensure independent monitoring of environmental impacts must come before the development of the drone delivery sector, rather than haphazard mitigation after the horse has bolted. The Government has ignored concerns in Dublin 15 for far too long. Soon, expansion of services across other areas, towns and cities will mean it can no longer be ignored. We desperately need effective regulation and rules about drones at both national and local level. This Bill is a welcome first step. I share the disappointment of colleagues that the Bill is being kicked down the road for a year. I hope the Government will, in the intervening period, come up with its own proposals. We would look forward to engaging constructively with the Minister of State on them, if they could be brought through urgently.

I welcome this incredibly timely Bill from Deputy O'Gorman on the regulation of drones because it is long overdue. I share others' concerns that the Government does not agree that it is timely, given that it is kicking it down the road. I want to address the kind of message I get back when I push for greater regulation across the tech space more broadly. I am thinking of online safety and the online platforms, which need to experience greater regulation, similarly in AI, particularly at EU level. Here we have a specific technology being operated within a regulatory vacuum. We in the Social Democrats support business. We support small business, innovation and enterprise. What we do not support is this vacuum of regulation. We want to see evidence-based decision-making and not a business-focused mindset from the Government when it comes to regulation. We have to make regulation work for business, but we do not take into consideration in a balanced way the concerns of the community. So many issues are brought into focus when we talk about drones. They affect our privacy, noise, environment, the economic picture, labour, health and so much more. We also have to see it well sequenced. We are in a vacuum now because of the lack of action from the Government. That results in a community that is essentially a Petri dish, being tested and trialled without the safety of regulation. I will take one example from the list I have provided: environment. We were kicking this about in the office when we were researching my contribution. The immediate thought might be that, from an environmental point of view, fewer cars on the road doing deliveries can be a benefit of the drone. Then you start to dig into it and find 70% of deliveries are done by bike, which are active transport, do not have carbon emissions and are carbon-neutral; therefore, you are not getting much gain from it. We do not know what the effect is on biodiversity. We just heard examples from Deputy Coppinger's constituents, including a near-collision with a bird. More than that, noise and air pollution come from this and what that will mean for nature and our planet is something we cannot play around with. We certainly cannot leave it as a guinea pig to be tested on. Ba chóir go mbeadh muid in ann guth a bheith againn maidir leis an méid atá ag tarlú díreach os ár gcionn. Tá muid ag iarraidh a bheith níos fearr ó thaobh pleanála de inár bpobail agus tá fadhb ollmhór nuair nach féidir é sin a dhéanamh mar gheall ar easpa reachtaíochta. The lack of regulation has left communities powerless to oppose the use of commercial drone delivery. In my constituency, local residents have contacted me in huge numbers. Other contributors have spoken of balance and said people are expressing different views but in my office the response to drones is overwhelmingly negative. Local residents are absolutely opposed to the development of a commercial drone delivery depot in Dundrum. What has deeply frustrated them in their efforts is that there is a vacuum of regulation and no avenues for them to raise their valid concerns and objections to drones flying over their homes and communities. Everyone should be able to raise issues they experience with noise and privacy concerns in a clear and effective way, and there needs to be a mechanism which allows those issues to be heard and taken seriously by the appropriate authorities. It is clear from the experiences of people who live in other parts of Dublin - specifically Dublin 15, where these drones have already been in operation for a number of years - that they do not have a voice within this regulatory process. The national policy framework for unmanned aircraft systems posits the implementation of drones as something economically beneficial but fails to recognise the slippery slope that this technology represents and the issues that are already affecting communities and which will continue to do so unless we see real regulation. I agree with Deputies who have said this will simply grow. As Deputy Donnelly said, for as long as regulation does not exist, this Chamber will get more and more full every month as Members discuss this issue. I want to include in my contribution some of the messages I received from my constituents. These are the people and community groups who will deal directly with the impact of unregulated drone delivery every day of their lives. They are left powerless by the current gaps in legislation, which this Bill seeks to address. A message from the Roebuck Residents' Association states: We wish to make the point that the Irish Aviation Authority, the IAA, does not sufficiently take the impact of this type of activity on residential amenity into account when awarding such licences and certificates. This certification was set up to accommodate more time-limited commercial drone activity such as drone use for mapping and surveying. There are many more parameters that need to be taken into account when considering drone activity for frequent deliveries over dense residential areas. The parameters that need to be taken into account include: - noise nuisance - safety issues - privacy concerns We are firmly of the belief that part of the oversight of such activity should fall under the remit of the local authority. The IAA is wholly unsuited to determine the effect of such activity on the residential amenity of affected homes in a particular location. We are aware that there is no reference to drones in the DLR County Development Plan, the Dundrum LAP, or indeed in any of the National or Regional Planning Frameworks and Strategies. Then I have correspondence from three individual local residents. The first states: While the technology may seem innovative, it raises serious concerns for our community. Drones could negatively impact noise levels, privacy, and safety, particularly in residential areas. They also risk disrupting wildlife and the character of our village. I believe there are better ways to support local businesses and improve services without compromising the quality of life in Dundrum. The second states: Drone activity threatens the peaceful environment needed by local families, children, and those seeking quiet. The final one states: Repeated, noisy drones operating in residential areas to deliver a cup of coffee is absolutely NOT a good idea. Trivial uses of drones by a few creates an unacceptable environment for the many. I am not sure why the Minister of State finds that funny.

Sorry, I was agreeing with the Deputy. It was the idea of ordering a coffee on a drone.

I appreciate the confirmation. As we have heard, that is genuinely what people are using them for. That is my point.

That is what most of it is.

Yes, I agree with Deputy Coppinger. If this can save lives by delivering medical equipment-----

It is unimaginable where I live, so-----

Can I continue, please? If this can save lives, make a meaningful contribution to the public interest or help in the delivery of health services or essential public services, I am all for it. I am all for creating a regulatory framework that will facilitate that but what we do not have is exactly that. A regulatory framework is absent; therefore, trivial and mass-scale commercial drone usage is what we will experience. This Bill is a positive step - again, I commend Deputy O'Gorman on bringing it forward at this time - towards protecting our communities and plugging the gaps in regulation which have been left unaddressed for far too long. I welcome this Bill and the debate today.

I had no idea people ordered coffee. I am in a lot of sympathy with the Deputies but that only shows there are many people out there very happy to order coffee by drone. That is part of the public view as well.

Just so the Minister of State knows, most of it is coffee.

Genuinely.

It is because of the quickness.

They are people who want coffee. They are voting with their orders as well. The Minister sends his apologies that he could not attend the latter half of the debate. I am happy to be here and respond to this important debate on behalf of the Government. The Deputies have made good contributions. Deputy O'Gorman has done incredible work bringing this to the House. We acknowledge the work that he has done. From a safety point of view, there is an effective EU-wide regulatory framework that is being implemented and overseen in the State by the Irish Aviation Authority, the civil aviation regulator, to ensure safe drone operations but the Government acknowledges, as the Minister already said, that the rapid expansion of drone use and drone operation has given rise to concerns and there is a need for clarity in areas outside of safety and in respect of the roles and responsibility of public bodies in drone operation. The concerns of communities impacted by increased drone operations are being heard. The Department of Transport will continue to engage with local representatives and communities on the issues raised. As previously outlined, the national policy framework for unmanned aircraft systems sets out the Government's policy in relation to the UAS sector to provide a balance between supporting growth and innovation in the drone sector, which, I have to say, I support because we have to be moving forward with technology where there are appropriate uses, but also to ensure safe and secure operations which are planned to minimise environmental and privacy impacts. The policy framework proposes a number of structures and actions that aim to address the concerns that have been raised in relation to the increasing usage of drones and operations in balance with the realisation of the economic and societal benefits that can happen from emerging and new technologies. The best approach to achieving this balance in as comprehensive and cohesive a manner as possible is through the implementation of the policy framework. As the drone innovation evolves new challenges may arise. The policy framework is a living document that will continue to evolve to keep pace with the evolution of the sector internationally and be responsive to emerging challenges and opportunities. The Government's position is that the issues raised are best addressed in a holistic approach through the implementation of the national policy framework for unmanned aircraft systems. This, we believe, is best facilitated through our proposed timed amendment. This will provide the space to examine any gaps in regulation and guidance and provide a more informed perspective on this Bill and any related regulatory issues. This debate and the contributions from Deputies today have been very valuable. The Government has heard the message from all contributors and will take this into the policy implementation process. We thank Deputy O’Gorman for the work he has done in this area that and, indeed, Deputies on all sides for their work to give voice and representation rightly to their communities on this issue.

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. 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'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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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.

The division is postponed until the weekly division time next week.