Tommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I support Deputies Daly and Munster and her Sinn Féin colleagues on this.

It was shattering to find in that report, to which previous speakers referred, Fingal County Council's clear desire not to be the noise regulator for all the reasons we laid out last week. If we had known about that letter last week, the debate in that regard would have been even more vigorous. Obviously there were issues about the resources the council would have but, as I said last week, clearly the officials in Fingal County Council, whom I hold in high regard, had great reservations about the course upon which the Minister is embarking because of issues down the line and the possibility that the council would be left open to legal challenge.

A report released only today or yesterday told us that the airport had its busiest January ever this year with more than 2 million passengers passing through. We are heading towards the cap as an annual figure of 40 million passengers might not be far away. There were many reports involved in the Fingal County Council consultation. In June 2016, RPS Group produced the environmental impact statement scoping report on the north runway proposal. Chapter 3.3 of that report is entirely devoted to human health and the impact of aviation noise thereon. It noted issues such as potential changes in concentration exposure to ground-borne emissions, airborne emissions, community disruption and the potential for bad health outcomes. It also lists annoyance, academic performance, sleep disturbance, risk of injury and so on as issues.

The evidence raised in the Fingal consultation with regard to environmental noise, including aircraft noise, which includes evidence from the European Environment Agency, EEA, and the World Health Organization, lists a wide range of medical conditions and other issues. These include cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction; cognitive impairment, including impacts on children's reading and education; the deep impacts sleep disturbance can have on people's daily lives; tinnitus; hearing loss; the sheer annoyance of being bothered by relentless aircraft noise; and impacts on quality of life and well-being. That is the other side. That is why amendment No. 60 in my name, echoing what colleagues have said, seeks to introduce an absolute requirement, under the EU directive or otherwise, for a longitudinal study over a number of years on the impacts of noise on residents. The amendment proposes to include this requirement in the legislation in black and white, as I know my colleague, Deputy Clare Daly, has done in respect of the 45 dB and 40 dB levels. It should be specified in the legislation.

The balanced approach is in the directive. People talk about a balanced approach which would include quieter aircraft and all kinds of noise abatement measures but, as I said the last day, one of the problems we have in our legislation is that there is no comprehensive noise legislation regime or national regulator. We have not established one so far. Local authorities have to deal with the matter day in, day out. In that context, I ask the Minister to try to address this by including this specific measure in the legislation. Such a measure is laid out very clearly in amendments Nos. 6 and 53. The Minister could also provide for some version of my amendment No. 60, which would make abating and ameliorating health impacts arising from noise a high priority for us.

See this speech in context