Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the debate. It is important that it should take place in the House. I listened with great interest to the contributions, especially those of Deputies representing the electoral area directly adjacent to Dublin Airport. As Chairman of the Oireachtas committee dealing with transport, my interest here is to listen to what people are actually saying. What is important, as mentioned in particular by Deputy Broughan, is the relationship between the airport authority and those who live in the area. It is critical to ensure engagement with local people takes place as that is where the future lies for statutory authorities, energy companies proposing controversial infrastructure and companies which have in the past trampled on people's rights, as we all know. I have not spoken to the DAA about this, but If meetings have not already taken place, they ought to. There ought to be consultation and it should not be an "us versus them" project.

Where projects benefit the wider community and not necessarily all of those who live in the adjacent area, the question of the greater good arises for politicians like me. From an economic point of view, we will argue that we must have additional airport capacity. If one is a businessperson involved in the local economy or looking for a job, any improvement or increase in employment prospects will be of benefit. I start from that point and acknowledge that it is a very strong case. Sometimes when one does not live next to something, it does matter to one because one knows the economy benefits. However, the question arises as to whether adequate attention has been paid to the people who live adjacent to airports or infrastructure carrying energy from one part of the country to the other. We have seen in rural areas that as pylons come closer to their homes, people get more excited and concerned. They become extremely agitated and upset. One of the issues here is the question of the benefit to the local community. Is there an additional benefit for those who live near or adjacent to infrastructural projects like these?

That is why I refer to the engagement of the DAA with residents' associations. That process must be separate from the project itself. Attempts should be made to identify what increased community benefits could be made available near airports and so on. Given the noise issue, the very first consideration is a commitment to use the airport at the times which least discommode people.

7 o’clock

Second, nobody would argue that airport authorities want only the noisiest airplanes in the world to be landing in their airports. Of course they do not. Aircraft technology is obviously improving. Noise levels are hugely important internationally. The idea is that they should be reduced and that best practice should be to ensure the least noise possible from aircraft. I know that airport authorities cannot dictate who lands and who does not, but these are issues that offer hope for the future in this regard. The objective of everybody is that noise levels would decrease rather than increase, that communities would engage with the airport authorities, and that there would be proper and respectful negotiations and discussions between them.

As I understand from the discussions we have had separately with the Minister's departmental officials, the issues are around the capacity of Fingal County Council to act as an independent, authoritative, and knowledgeable body in making this decision initially. This capacity has been questioned because of the special skills required to adjudicate on issues like these. One point which I think is particularly clear is that, whether it is Fingal County Council, the EPA or another agent that will ultimately make this decision, very specialised knowledge and skills are required which I understand may have to come from outside experts or people who have specialist knowledge in this area. In those meetings we looked at how other countries make these decisions and at who makes these decisions for them. Whoever makes it must have the relevant knowledge and skills.

The question being asked locally about the capacity of Fingal County Council, if and when it gets that authority, is whether there will be sufficient assurances, reassurances and, for want of a better word, Chinese walls in place to ensure that there will be a totally and absolutely clear demarcation between data and information coming out of the part of the council which will be designated for that purpose and the rest of that operation. That does not mean that officials could not have tea and coffee together or park in the same car park, but the key point for credibility is that there must be clarity. How that clarity is achieved is a matter for the airport authority, the Minister and his officials to talk about, but that is critical.

From what I have heard, some people, including some public representatives, may be of the opinion that this is a done deal and that the path of least resistance will be taken. Fingal County Council gets an income from commercial activities and the bigger the airport and the more runways it has, the more it will be paid in rates. There is an issue there. While obviously the Minister cannot put that in legislation, or I presume he cannot, getting a commitment in that respect would be useful and positive. I would like to think that, when we come to Committee Stage, we could go through those issues with the Minister and his officials. Out of it all will come a vibrant and growing economy. Obviously even a soft Brexit will create problems and will have a serious negative effect on our society and economy. Dublin Airport should and must develop, but it must develop in the best possible way with empathy, understanding, appreciation and commitment to the people who live nearest to it.

Fingal County Council should and must give reassurances in respect of the decision making process and its complete and utter separation from the other affairs of the council, because at the end of the day it will be the planning authority as well as the authority with the capacity, under the legislation, to make this recommendation.

I want to say a few words about the airport if I may. I have not been there for a while but one of the things that annoys me when I go in - and I beg the Acting Cathaoirleach's indulgence for a moment to say this - is that I find the cost of purchasing items such as food in the airport is sky high. While one does not mind paying it because one might be travelling at 6 a.m. or whatever, the airport, particularly some of the eating areas, is in a very bad condition. The seating is frayed and the place is often filthy dirty. It annoys me to see the muck, dirt, filth and lack of attention in some of the eating areas and the arrogance of the franchisee who does not care about where one sits or what one's surroundings are like. When I have been there I have consistently found that to be the case. If people from the DAA are listening, I would ask them if they do audits of standards of hygiene and cleanliness. I am talking about ordinary cleanliness. There is muck and dirt on the floor and frayed and torn pieces of furniture. It is absolutely unacceptable and I ask the Minister to say that to the DAA if and when he gets a chance to meet with it. I will get the chance when I meet with it. I would like to see how frequently the cleanliness, hygiene, value for money, and what the consumers are getting are audited. Millions of us go through there every year.

Obviously this legislation is not about any of that. It is about working, in the most appropriate and respectful way, with the people who will be most concerned about this decision. I wish the legislation well. I look forward to Committee Stage and the discussions we will have at that time.

See this speech in context