Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I start by reading an email from a resident who had hoped to be here last night. He wrote:

Myself and my partner live 200 metres from the main (south) runway at Dublin airport. We are actually inside the perimeter of DAA lands with only one road in and out. God forbid there would ever be an accident or a plane crash. We are now at a stage where life in our home is just unbearable. A night's sleep is a thing of the past, with the pictures dancing on the wall, the headboard on the bed vibrating with the whole house. DAA don't seem to have any concern for us in any way and they are taking on more contracts every day, and with the airport being so busy these flights are now happening in the middle of the night - Maastricht, Moldova and so on.

6 o’clock

This discussion is not about runways or jobs but about noise. It is specifically about the impact of noise on residents in airport communities. This is not a figment of people's imaginations but is a real and recognised threat to human health and well-being. In his speech yesterday, the Minister referred to the existing conditions on the second parallel runway at Dublin Airport and said that the DAA would be applying to change these conditions, almost implying that they were a relic of some distant past. In reality, however, the conditions put in place when planning permission was granted for the second parallel runway were imposed at a time when our knowledge of the impact of noise was not as extensive as it is now. If anything, the restrictions that are in place now do not go far enough. The regulation before us places an obligation on the DAA to mitigate against noise impacts. Consideration of noise is not an optional extra but an obligation. The hierarchy, as set out in the balanced approach, means that the consideration of noise impacts on adjoining communities must be addressed legally. This is an incredibly big deal and that should be our starting point.

In 2007 when An Bord Pleanála's inspector refused permission for a second parallel runway on noise grounds he said that the full nature and extent of the increase in night noise had not been satisfactorily identified and qualified. He said that the proposed mitigation measures in terms of the insulation of schools were inadequate, having regard to the correlation between noise and children's cognitive development. He also said that the increase in aircraft noise, both day and night, coupled with the increased risk in terms of public health and safety, would seriously injure the amenities of properties and community facilities in the area. Of course, we know that his opinion was overruled and An Bord Pleanála granted permission, albeit on the basis of two very strict conditions. However, two years later in 2009, the World Health Organization, WHO, introduced and amended its night noise guidelines. In the context of evidence for night noise exposure, the WHO indicated that 40 decibels should be the target to protect vulnerable groups, particularly children, the chronically ill and the elderly, with 55 decibels being the interim target. Noise levels between 40 and 55 decibels at night, according to the WHO, lead to adverse health effects among the exposed population, with many people having to adapt their lives to cope with the noise. It points out that vulnerable groups are more severely affected. This is the reality with which we are dealing. This legislation designates a competent authority which is designed to adjudicate upon such matters. The fact that the existing insulation programme on offer from the DAA to adjoining residents is only available from 63 decibels and the relocation programme is only applicable at 69 decibels shows how out of touch and behind the curve we are in terms of the serious impact of noise on human health and well-being.

My starting point is that this legislation is incredibly important. It is about formalising a competent authority with the power to order measures to deal with noise. That is good and welcome. The DAA, in the lobbying letter that it sent to all of us, was at pains to stress that it is essential that this legislation is not incorrectly viewed as a proxy for debating the new runway, a wide range of potential noise mitigation measures and the stakeholder views arising. It said that the legislation is about a totally new and independent competent authority. The DAA is right but it is a pity that its letter then goes on to contradict that lofty claim. It suggests that the time window for making such decisions is closing with every passing week and states there is a likelihood that airlines will be left with no option but to relocate to other countries and so on. It also devotes a big section of the letter to the new runway, precisely undermining its opening statement that this legislation is not about the new runway. The DAA is at pains to say that "pending regulatory clarity", Dublin Airport will have about 40% less running capacity at key periods and so on and that in practice, this means that no growth will be possible at key times of the day. Let us be clear here. What the DAA is really saying is that pending the completion of the second runway, capacity will be restricted. It is linking this to the runway. In my opinion, this is an attempt at blackmail by the back door. The idea that billions of euro will be spent on a runway that will have less capacity is utter nonsense. When we look closely at the phraseology, we see that it is very cleverly worded. The letter refers to a reduction in capacity "at key times". It does not refer to the fact that overall capacity will be massively increased.

We must get real here. Balanced development is necessary to protect human health. It is a fact that 99 flights currently operate at night or in the exclusionary zones. Under the conditions that exist once the second runway is commissioned, that will fall by about 33%. However, it is not unusual to have night-time restrictions and that is not something to be threatened. The problem with this legislation is that the Minister and Department have framed the discussion on it in the context of lifting and amending the two existing restrictions on night-time flying. We saw that in the briefings we received from departmental officials. All of the talk started with the planning application process whereas in actual fact, the establishment of the competent authority and the way the Bill is structured are much more important factors in balancing issues related to complaints about the impact of noise.

It is ironic that in a previous discussion the Minister said that Dublin Airport's strategic importance does not mean that the DAA can "ride roughshod" over the sensibilities or the lives of people who live in the area. Regulation is supposed to be designed to ensure that is the case. However, the way the Minister has handled this process is appalling. The attempts a number of weeks ago to ram this through and put it on the Order Paper when the Bill had not even been published and the efforts made to schedule the Committee Stage debate for next week, the week before Christmas, when the Second Stage process had not even been concluded are an absolute affront to democracy. The handling of this by the Minister is an utter shambles.

In March 2016, we were told that the Attorney General and the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment were in consultation on the implementation of regulation for June 2016. In September of that year, the Minister told us that the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, had been selected as the competent authority and that he hoped to finalise the necessary statutory instrument within a few weeks. Six months later, in February 2017, the Minister told us that the delay was because of legal issues that are being "looked at". He said that he was sorry and that he had hoped to have it done by 2016 and that it was five or six weeks late at that stage. He said that the delay was indicative of the fact that the Office of Attorney General was determined to ensure that the rights of residents would be protected. He went on to say that there would be a requirement to introduce a statutory instrument and that he saw the IAA as the "best fit" to deal with noise management at Dublin Airport, in line with what was happening in Europe and in international civil aviation. He also said that his officials were currently engaged with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to finalise details of the statutory instrument. Four months after that, in June 2017, the Minister told us that the Attorney General was still actively engaged with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and that he had just looked at the seventh, and hopefully the last, draft which would be finalised by the end of that week. The Minister said that this was a top priority for the new Attorney General.

That gives a whole new meaning to the word "priority". It is utterly shocking that at the time the Minister indicated there was broad agreement that the IAA was best-positioned to take on the role and do it to the highest standard of professional competence. It has a strong and recognisably verified track record in the areas of aviation safety and inspection - functions for which it already has legal responsibility. The Minister stated that making it responsible for noise regulation makes sense, and most of us agreed with him.

Despite more than a year of engagement with top legal minds and multiple drafts of legislation, four months later the advice was stood on its head and rejected. The IAA was not suitable because it was not independent after all. Will the Minister explain how that happened? It does not add up. It was an insult that, four months later, Fingal County Council was appointed. Having stated the IAA could not be used because it did not have the necessary staffing, reporting, accountability and funding arrangements required to meet the new benchmark of independence, which meant it was not a viable option, the Government then gave the responsibility to Fingal County Council, which certainly was not suitable. The situation is utterly bizarre and unique because no other jurisdiction in the European Union has selected an organisation like Fingal County Council. Eight of the member states are exempt from this provision because their airports are too small, while another eight have designated their civil aviation authority, that is, the equivalent of the IAA, which is the most popular choice. Five member states have designated a government department, two have designated multiple bodies, while two have not yet done anything. The Minister stated that three have designated a local authority or federal authority, and put us in the same group as Germany and the UK, but that is not a fair comparison. In Germany and the UK, the ministry for transport is involved and, therefore, it is not a fair or equal comparison.

We are back to the beginning. The IAA was the most popular choice with citizens, it is the vehicle used by most countries, and whatever objection the Minister previously had to using it on the grounds of independence, there is no valid objection on the basis of his decision to separate the functions of the IAA, namely, its commercial air navigation tasks and its independent regulation of air navigation services. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister about progress in this regard yesterday, and he replied, "It provides a sounder governance and organisational basis for enhancing regulatory functions into the future, which is needed to match the ever growing regulatory demands – particularly in [the] aviation [industry] and security - emanating from the EU and ICAO." Those organisations are the very source of the legislation.

There has been engagement with top-level technical bodies, and the process is already well under way. While it will take some time to give the functions of the IAA to the Commission for Aviation Regulation, CAR, it is already well under way. It is recognised that the official expertise to deal with the noise regulation issue does not exist and, therefore, there is no reason the CAR cannot be upskilled or contract in the expertise in the way that the Minister's officials told us Fingal would have to do. It makes eminent sense to give the function in the newly split IAA environment to the CAR. As Deputy Brendan Ryan indicated, no Opposition Deputies will tolerate Fingal County Council being appointed and the Bill will not progress unless the Minister addresses the issue. It is a requirement to have an independent authority, but Fingal does not even appear independent. The DAA stated that it does not really care what body gets it as long as some body does, and Fingal does not want it. No other country has done what the Government is proposing.

The issue rests with the Minister, who has some serious thinking to do over Christmas. When I raised the matter with him previously, he indicated that there was no plan B. He had better put on his thinking cap and make a plan B because the community will not put up with anything else. We will table amendments to designate the CAR as the competent authority in the Bill. The Minister must start listening, because the Bill has been structured to facilitate the DAA's efforts to lift the night-time restrictions. The way it is phrased leaves the path to invoke the action of the competent authority unclear.

In case there is any attempt to spin what is being said on the Opposition benches, it is important to note that none of us is anti-airport. I made my livelihood in the airport, and my constituents, friends and colleagues live near it and love it. The industry is important, but it cannot carry on unfettered. The impact of climate change, for example, is severe, and airlines and aviation must take it into account.

Night-time restrictions have been factored in at almost every other airport because of the impact on human health and society. The best comparison to Dublin Airport is probably Manchester Airport, which restricts night flights to 7% of the total number of flights at the airport. In Dublin, on the other hand, the restriction is 14%. Manchester brought in many measures to control the use of noisy aircraft at night such as quotas or a provision to the effect that night flights must use a lower-noise aircraft. It introduced multiple measures between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. which I do not have time to outline but they are much meatier than what is proposed in the Bill. That is the direction in which we must go.

The idea that the airlines will uproot and move to other jurisdictions and that thousands of jobs will be lost is ridiculous. As Deputy Brendan Ryan stated at the previous session, it will have an impact on their profits, but it is a legal requirement that the implication of noise must be considered. When the runway was originally given planning permission, strict night-time restrictions on noise were put in place and, as a result, the requirement for insulation was more lax. If there is to be any lifting of the operational restrictions at night, it can be done only in the context of a much broader scheme of insulation to affect those who will be affected by it. That would be a balanced approach. The idea that residents would give over that function to Fingal County Council, which made the original decision to grant planning permission, is utterly ridiculous. No other country in Europe has done anything like it, and Fingal does not even want the function. The chief executive officer of the council would be engaged in planning in one room, while sorting out the staffing of the noise regulator in another. This does not look good for the Government, and I am sure it will be the subject of judicial challenge.

We will table many amendments on Committee Stage, which we look forward to, but the Bill will go nowhere unless the Minister wakes up, starts to undo the ridiculous shambolic way in which the Bill has progressed and listens to this side of the House. Otherwise, we will return to a situation where the reason for the delays will rest nowhere but on his door.

See this speech in context