Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I want to back up my colleague, Deputy Troy. I thank the Minister's officials as well because we have discussed this at length and we have discussed it on Committee Stage also. If one looks at the section within the Bill from page 45 to page 46, as Deputy Troy said, this would be giving the oversight to the competent authority, which is the right thing to do so that the DAA would not be the arbiter and the final decision maker on who is in the scheme or not. However, as Deputy Troy has said, it specifically relates to not just the existing scheme and the voluntary scheme but to those who may be affected by the new runway when that opens and we are aware of that. That is why we tried to improve the drafting of amendment No. 88, which we are discussing in this block and which was passed on Committee Stage.

The amendment states: "Expand the existent noise insulation scheme to all homes affected by any and all flight paths into the airport, including those created by any future developments at the airport." I understand why that would be too broad and there could be someone in An Clochán or in Waterford or somewhere on the approach to Dublin actually applying to the scheme based on that language and that would reduce the capacity to allow more people in the affected areas into the scheme. That is why our amendment states: "In page 46, lines 1 and 2, to delete “affected by any and all flight paths into the airport” and substitute “located within relevant noise contours”." There are specifically published noise contour maps that we have that are very distinct but it would still allow the competent authority to decide whether a person was in or not. We are allowing the competent authority to do its job and we are removing that function from the DAA.

That is probably something that the DAA would welcome but my concern is for the residents and is the reason for the amendment we passed on Committee Stage and the reason for this change. It is for people who are not opposing development of the airport, who understand the economic importance of the 20,000 jobs and the 114,000 indirect jobs that are supported there and the livelihoods which result. They deserve, on the basis of the balanced approach, that their lives are not impinged upon any further by this so this is a very reasonable amendment.

In section 2 of the amendment that we put forward, which was worthwhile, we stated that: "The competent authority shall be responsible for evaluating the design and implementation of the airport authority’s noise insulation scheme, with a view to ensuring maximum benefit for local residents." That is important. The Minister's amendment No. 99 is basically bringing in the existing scheme. That is fine, it cannot just be left out there and the Minister is responding to the request that Fianna Fáil made on Committee Stage to bring the existing scheme in. I get that and that is welcome so that means those people are there. Then we are saying that it would be responsible for the evaluation, design and implementation of the airport authority's noise insulation scheme based on the new runway as well. In the Minister's amendment, I respectfully say that it does not allude to that and we need to be prescriptive on that element of it to give comfort to residents so that they know that it is not just the existing scheme and that the scheme can be expanded. I know that in the explanatory notes the Minister and his officials have explained that the Minister's amendment would permit that and that the competent authority could expand it. However, I believe that we need to be prescriptive and it is no harm to have that in the legislation.

We are also saying that: "The competent authority must publish an evaluation immediately following the design of a new noise insulation scheme, and no later than 1 year following the commencement of the new scheme." There are pieces such as that which we put in around what the evaluation would consider. That may be too prescriptive. It is not necessarily for us to say to experts there that they need to do A, B, C, D, E, F, G. For the second part of it, if further work is required then that could be done in the Seanad. However, it would be crucially important for buy in from people for this process that it is clear in the legislation that the insulation scheme can and will be expanded, as decided by the noise regulator, along the lines of the other aspects of the Bill that we have managed to get through, such as the World Health Organization noise guidelines and all of those matters that have been an improvement to the legislation that was published in the first instance. This is crucially important for those communities which are beside the existing runway and in the flight path but which will be in the flight path of the new runway as well.

It needs a bit of additional work and we have tried to do that with amendment No. 88, which was tabled in the spirit of co-operation from lengthy discussions that were had with the Department to try to find a way forward on this. By deleting "affected by any and all flight paths into the airport" and substituting that with "located within relevant noise contours" we have reduced the numbers who may potentially get into the scheme. We are only talking about those who are within those parameters. I say respectfully that Deputy Troy has tabled a very relevant and helpful amendment that will improve the situation. If something needs to be done further down the line, if we are being too prescriptive on what we want the competent authority to do then that is something that could be looked at in the Seanad. It is crucially important that we are prescriptive and descriptive on the noise insulation scheme because people need confidence that this scheme can and will be expanded on the basis of how communities are affected by the expansion of the airport.

See this speech in context