Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

In supporting Deputy Brendan Ryan we have to start from the position of how we got to where we are today. This Bill has been a through a long and tortuous process, particularly for those of us who represent the communities impacted most by aircraft noise. During the Second Stage debate in the House, many, if not all, of us on the Opposition benches made the point that to transpose the EU directive properly and to respect the health and well-being of residents, we need to amend the Bill as drafted. Throughout Committee and Report Stages in the House we succeeded, to our delight, in having amendments accepted which we believe made the Bill better. We have previously made the point that we were appreciative of the briefings provided to us behind the scenes by the officials of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport regarding this legislation and our efforts to ensure the directive is transposed in a manner which allows the balanced approach for noise mitigation.

Deputy Ryan is correct that this was supposed to be a positive measure for airport communities. We were supposed to be getting to a position where there was a recognition of the established medical fact that exposure to noise, particularly at night time, which causes a disruption to a person's sleep pattern, results in an impact on that person's health which is significant. Substantial studies have been undertaken on a global scale, which demonstrate that this is the case. We know, for example, that young children and older citizens are particularly exposed to the disruption caused by aircraft noise in terms of their health and well-being. This resolution is supposed to bring in mechanisms in recognition of the fact that airports create noise. We all love airports. Before I was elected to this House, I worked in an airport. All of my friends and many of my constituents work in the airport community. It is important to stress that we all love airports but they have to operate in a sustainable and balanced way. In this sense, it is important that health and well-being are recognised in the legislation.

Deputy Ryan is also correct that when we raised this issue on various Stages, the Minister responded that health is covered and it does not to be specified further. If it is covered, what is the harm in re-emphasising it, because it is critical to this legislation? The Minister's argument does not stand up. From our point of view, it is not specified and it needs to be included. It is important to put on the record that this was agreed by the Dáil on an earlier Stage. As the Minister will be aware, a number of complaints have been made to the European Union regarding the manner in which the Government is dealing with this matter. I have no doubt, sadly, that it will be the subject of litigation in the future. He needs to deal with these issues because residents feel incredibly exposed in terms of the scenario being put before them.

The manner in which he has handled this legislation is atrocious. Never before has legislation been rammed through as quickly as this in terms of the activities that were engaged in at the Business Committee last week, when the Government insisted that it had to be dealt with today even though it had not been dealt with by the Seanad at that time. The Government was adamant that it was going to railroad this legislation through the Houses and it was clear Fianna Fail was going to facilitate it in doing so. There is nobody here from Fianna Fáil for this debate. The Bill got through the Seanad, as planned. Even though we succeeded in winning these gains in the Dáil, we are here at the eleventh dealing with them again.

The Minister has never explained to us why the reference to health is not needed. There is no impediment to it being included. I support Deputy Ryan's amendment. We do not need clauses and specifications for health and well-being removed.

In our view, the purpose of this regulation is to take a balanced approach to aircraft noise. The outcome should be the protection of the health and well-being of residents. What is the harm in specifying that in legislation?

See this speech in context