Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This Bill seeks to give effect to EU Regulation No. 598/2014, which requires airports over a certain size to appoint a noise regulator. I welcome the people in the Gallery and must say I admire the restraint and patience of those who live beside Dublin Airport because they have been living with a lot of uncertainty for the past few years since planning permission was granted for the additional runway. They are practical people. They know that the airport is there. It comes as no surprise to them. They and we believe that the good neighbour policy Dublin Airport is keen to foster needs fostering and protecting. They know they live beside the airport; it does not come as a shock to them. They know it is going to be noisy but, equally, they have a right to a decent quality of life. It does not seem much to ask that the night flight restrictions be retained for the sake of the health and safety of those who live in the environs of the airport or under the flight paths.

Sinn Féin will not oppose this legislation progressing to Committee Stage but we do so only to facilitate the putting forward of amendments, as my colleague, Teachta Munster, has indicated. If these amendments are not accepted and if the concerns are not addressed then we will not be in a position to support this legislation. As has been said already, there has been substantial delay in progressing the legislation. Now, at the very last minute, we see attempts being made to rush it through. Of course that sets off alarm bells for the residents because they have seen years of inaction and delay, yet all of a sudden, at ten minutes to Christmas, everything has to be done. I commend Teachta Munster and others on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport on ensuring that we have adequate time to prepare amendments for Committee Stage. The deferral of Committee Stage is extremely important. It means we have time to engage within our own offices and parties, to talk to the people who are impacted and to formulate those amendments.

Notwithstanding that there was a delay, the legislation seems very hastily written. One particular omission is the mention of health. This is contained in the EU regulation but there is only one mention of it in the legislation. The regulation states:

The importance of health aspects needs to be recognised in relation to noise problems, and it is therefore important that those aspects be taken into consideration in a consistent manner at all airports when a decision is taken on noise abatement objectives, taking into account the existence of common Union rules in this area. Therefore, health aspects should be assessed in accordance with Union legislation on the evaluation of noise effects.

The regulation further states "The objectives of this Regulation are ... to facilitate the achievement of specific noise abatement objectives, including health aspects, at the level of individual airports, while respecting relevant Union rules, in particular those laid down in Directive 2002/49/EC, and the legislation within each Member State". This legislation, however, only mentions health at section 38(3)(a), which only refers to special areas of conservation and special protection areas, as was mentioned earlier. This is not acceptable; there are of course areas of special conservation around the airport but those areas and the airport exist beside real people in real communities whose health and well-being is not mentioned in the Bill. This omission gives those people cause to be very worried. They do not believe that their health and well-being is in any way a priority for this legislation and when they read the Bill they see that there is nothing there to contradict that view. The EU regulation is very clear on what it seeks to do. It states:

Sustainable development of air transport requires the introduction of measures aimed at reducing the noise impact from aircraft at Union airports. Those measures should improve the noise environment around Union airports in order to maintain or increase the quality of life of neighbouring citizens and foster compatibility between aviation activities and residential areas, in particular where night flights are concerned.

Where in this proposed legislation is the provision for maintaining, much less increasing, the quality of life for the citizens who are neighbours to the airport?

The proposal by the Government to appoint Fingal County Council as the competent authority is also a very curious one. This issue has been rehearsed and the arguments have been made. I cannot understand why the Minister would believe that it is a good idea - it might be a convenient idea - to appoint Fingal County Council to this role. I simply cannot fathom that. It is convenient but apart from that, I do not see a reason. The regulation provides that the competent authority shall be independent of any organisation which could be affected by noise-related action. It suggests that this independence may be achieved through a functional separation. How can there be a functional separation where the chief executive of the competent authority is also the chief executive of the entity that receives significant rates from the airport? I just do not understand how that functional separation can exist when there will be one unit in charge. That is not in any way to cast aspersions on Fingal County Council or the people who work in it because I know that they work hard. They themselves will say they do not have the expertise to be able to do this work. When we talk about functional separation, how is it going to be achieved? There is nothing in this Bill that gives us any indication. It seems to me that it is not possible. The experience and expertise are simply not there. I did attend briefings with the Minister's officials, who were of the view that Fingal County Council would have to buy in the expertise because the expertise does not exist.

If Fingal County Council has to buy in the expertise, that brings us back to the original question of how Fingal County Council was chosen. The answer, of course, is that it is convenient. The convenient solution is not necessarily the best.

As an Teachta Munster outlined, we will be proposing that the Commission for Aviation Regulation be appointed to be the competent authority. We could not support this legislation as it is currently written. We will resist attempts to appoint Fingal County Council as the competent authority and I know that others will be doing the same.

I urge the Minister to listen to the concerns of the residents and their representatives. Is it really a good idea for the regulator to be responsible for regulating its single biggest ratepayer? Is it really the best way to safeguard the health and safety of those living in the neighbourhood of the airport? We do not oppose the new runway but we will oppose the Bill if it does not fulfil the requirements of the EU regulation. We simply cannot support the appointment of Fingal County Council as the competent authority. Fingal County Council is a very good, hard working, competent and capable local authority, but it is not a regulator in that sense and it will need to buy in the expertise. It makes no sense when the expertise does not exist.

The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport officials also indicated that temporary expertise might have to be brought in or that the council might be able to bring people in from time to time. I do not think that is any way to provide what the regulation requires which is that health and safety should be part of it. I do not believe it can be done in that piecemeal way.

This evening's discussion gives us a good opportunity to highlight concerns residents have, such as the concerns about insulation mentioned already. I am sure these people would very much welcome the opportunity to meet the Minister and discuss those in full. Nobody disputes that the airport is very important locally and nationally. Future developments must be balanced along with the needs of the people who will be impacted by this.

Because Committee Stage will not be taken until the new year, there is time to consider alternative options such as the Commission for Aviation Regulation. There is time to engage with the residents and their representatives to ensure this legislation goes through, and that we comply with the regulation in full.

See this speech in context