Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have now realised I was actually barking up the right tree, so well done to me. This is the key point. The Minister is correct there are no specific planning applications or existing permissions mentioned in this, and that would be entirely inappropriate. However, it would also be utterly la-la for us to sit here without mentioning the giant elephant or 747 in the room, namely, the open and declared intention of the DAA, supported in many quarters, that immediately after this legislation is in place, it will be relying on it to seek changes to the current restrictions on night noise, night movements and so on. This is the issue which has caused huge concern for residents and it relates to the points I made earlier. Those conditions were put in after a very long battle, as we discussed the last day, and they were put in to protect human health. We have dealt with the issues around the impact on health, which is the nightmare reality for people.

If we take these provisions in the context of what the Minister has said and the discussion that was had the last day, when we were told there was an urgency in this regard and that it absolutely had to be done, we know what this means. It means the DAA has asked for this, and we have seen that its correspondence refers to uncertainty. I do not accept there is uncertainty. I am in favour of development at Dublin Airport. I got my livelihood from the airlines, and my constituents and former workmates rely on the airport. We want a healthy and vibrant airport. However, in the modern era, it has to be one which respects residents and works in tandem with them. The night restrictions that are in place can be kept in place and work alongside a growing and developing airport; it just requires a different outcome for the airline operators.

It is okay for the DAA to say Ryanair and Aer Lingus will decamp and go to Honolulu or whatever but they will not. What they will have to do is make changes. The current restrictions propose 65 night movements once the second runway is up and running and there is a restriction on night-time hours. At present there are some 99 night movements per night so it is true, on the surface, that once the second runway is operational, there will be a one third reduction in night flights from the present figure. However, on the basis of a new runway and much more movement during the day, what it means is not fewer flights overall, just fewer flights during that time.

What does this mean and why is the provision there? It is there to suit the likes of Ryanair utilising aircraft on a certain day in order to maximise its profits. It wants the aircraft going out at 6 a.m. so it can bring them back two and three times a day. It does not suit Mrs. Mop who is going to Tenerife to get up at 4 a.m. to drive up from Limerick to get that aeroplane, and it would actually suit her better if it was after 7 a.m. and would suit the residents in that area also. How do we square the circle? It is very easy. The airlines have multiple staff employed on aircraft scheduling and utilisation. What they have to do is match their fleets to the requirements. With regard to the 65 flights during the night, the businessmen going to London or businesswomen going to Berlin should be accommodated on an early flight and the airlines have the information available to accommodate that.

However, somebody going to Tenerife or Lanzarote does not need to get up in the middle of the night and disturb residents in St. Margaret's, Portmarnock and Swords. We have to start thinking like that because it is unsustainable for the aviation industry to carry on, unfettered. In that sense, having a balanced development in tandem with the way in which the airport operates is the best way forward. These conditions should be protected and the best way to reassure residents is to keep them in place. At the moment, they cannot be changed. This legislation is being introduced to deal with noise regulation but the DAA has said that it is going to use it to change the conditions. The reality is that it can change the conditions without this law but by structuring this Bill, which is good legislation, in this way with these two clauses in it, we are giving the DAA a platform to change those two conditions. If we do that and lose control of our democratic say in this part of the process, then we are abdicating our representative responsibility to the residents. I do not believe it should be included and I will definitely press the question.