Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is a matter of historical record that the reason the amendments before us are not better than they were is that Fianna Fáil helped out and bailed out the Minister and ensured that Fingal County Council, rather than the preferred option of the rest of the Opposition and indeed the majority of the residents in the area, would be the competent authority. I refer to the Commission for Aviation Regulation, particularly in the context that there has already been a strategic decision that this is the body which should deal with aviation regulation in all areas. I do not know whether or not the Minister was trying to help Fianna Fáil but, to my mind, this would not really do the party any favours.

I do agree with the Minister, however, that the problem, when we say this has been railroaded through, was not the curtailment of the Seanad debate. Unfortunately, the Senators in the main did not display a huge degree of interest in this issue. It was a result of their lack of engagement and lack of knowledge regarding this critically important area that the debate folded up relatively quickly in the Seanad, and I grant the Minister that. It is true. The point Deputy Brendan Ryan made, however, was not that and not about those of us who say it was rammed through. He was making the point that the Business Committee of this House was forced to schedule this debate today, prior to the Seanad having completed its consideration of the Bill and having tabled the amendments. We did not even know when we met as a Business Committee last Thursday how many Seanad amendments there would be because the deadline for Seanad amendments was not until the Friday, yet the Business Committee was forced to agree to this discussion taking place today. It is worth pointing out that every Opposition group, including Fianna Fáil, voted against the debate taking place today because it is unseemly and unprecedented that discussion on a Bill in the Seanad would finish on Tuesday night; that amendments would be made to the Bill, amendments which in this case changed what this House did after a lot more careful consideration, let us be clear, than the Seanad gave the Bill; and that we would then be forced to discuss those amendments today, on the Thursday before a bank holiday weekend, at the 11th hour. That was the problem and that is what we mean when we say this was rammed through, and we fully stand over those points.

The Minister made the point that we all share the same concerns. Do we? I am not so sure. I am not happy with the answer he gave to Deputy Brendan Ryan to the very valid question he posed, that is, if the Minister is saying health and well-being are already covered and we do not need to put in this extra safeguard because it is there already, what is the harm in inserting it? For the Minister to say it is not legal does not really stand up because this House has already heard the arguments and voted to include this provision, so that is old hat and there is nothing new in that argument. Let us be clear what the real reason is. It is that some Members of this House have pandered more to the interests of DAA than to those of the residents surrounding the airport.

As I said many times, I was an airport worker in a former life. I am an airport worker in my heart, as are all my friends and many of my constituents, so I quite like DAA. Dalton Philips has done a good job, and DAA is a good organisation. However, one needs to look at the lobbying record and the history of the organisation. Under freedom of information, FOI, residents have shown us that in 2018, for example, ten lobbying meetings, including a number of meetings with Fianna Fáil and so on, were registered under the Act by DAA, and we know what the intention of these were. When the Bill was passed in this House a number of weeks ago, including my amendment, which the Minister now wants to take out, about the World Health Organization guidelines, it happened to be the same week in which Fingal County Council celebrated its 25th anniversary. There was a big gala dinner in Malahide, which many of us attended, and at which the issue of airport noise featured very strongly. Everyone, including DAA, asked what we are trying to do in here, if we are trying to shut down the airport and how in God's name could Dáil Éireann ever have passed such an amendment. We know that the Whip was embarrassed. He had sent everyone home, thinking the debate had finished that night, and we managed to pull off a miracle by getting that amendment passed in the House with the numbers that were there. We all know what happened, but the fact is that this was the talk of that gathering with DAA and the upper echelons of the community at the Fingal County Council event. It was said that putting in these health safeguards would jeopardise the operation of the airport. That was the message being sent. Those of us on this side of the House happen to believe that that is not the case, that that is not an accurate narrative and that it is possible to have the sustainable development of Dublin Airport while protecting the health and well-being of residents in the area surrounding the airport. There is a difference here because we recognise that to do this comes at an extra cost to DAA. It does not mean the airport is going to close down, it does not mean it is going to be bankrupted, but it does mean that DAA will have to cough up a good bit more for noise insulation and other remedies to mitigate the established damage that aircraft noise does to those airport communities. That is the difference, and there is a difference. I can understand why the Minister might get thick about people who missed many stages of this process coming in here at the 11th hour and lecturing him, but he should not be conned that everyone on this side of the House is like that because we are not. We have followed this through from the very beginning and we will keep following through on it.

I want to deal with what we mean. Noise contours established at present in Dublin Airport are inadequate. There is substantial evidence to this effect, and the guidelines I succeeded in having inserted here under amendment No. 85, as it was at the time, which the Minister is now attempting to remove, were a great step forward because they put into print that we would have the World Health Organization guidelines in the legislation. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have the Bill state that we recognise the World Health Organization guidelines but also say we must take out provisions in which it is spelled out what they are. Clearly, there is something going on here. What the Minister really wants to do is pay a sop to the WHO guidelines but in reality ignore them, and all the residents know that.

I wish to deal with a communication from a resident in Portmarnock regarding this matter. She makes a point about the reality of life in the areas which are outside DAA's self-declared contour lines and the difficulties in those contour lines. Residents have highlighted in recent days the difference between the EPA 2012 round 2 and the 2017 round 3 noise maps. They say a huge amount of a greater area and numbers of people affected, and indeed greater considerations of wildlife, have been included in round 3. Some people say the wildlife considerations are a little harebrained, and that may or may not be, but the reality is that there are legal provisions to protect habitats and wildlife, perhaps in some ways they are not as great at protecting people. That is an argument for a separate day, but those directives still exist. We know, for example, that the flight path of the current runway impacts on special areas of conservation and special areas of protection for birds, which are protected under the Habitats Directive. Under this directive, an appropriate assessment must be undertaken on any plan or project that will impact on a conservation site, as this development does. What the Minister is seeking to do through the Bill before us is exclude it from proper scrutiny. He is trying through the Bill to remove the conditions that were put in place by An Bord Pleanála to restrict the number of night flights and he is doing so in a manner which avoids the public having a right to a say on the matter. That is legally questionable, in my opinion. Residents make the point that as birds roost in these areas, any increase in nighttime traffic will impact sleep patterns, and at present the An Bord Pleanála conditions severely restrict night flights.

The removal of these conditions without appropriate assessment will, therefore, breach EU environmental law. It is ironic that birds are more protected than people but it would appear they are. The residents will utilise that as much as they can. Portmarnock residents point out that even in the middle of the night they are frequently woken up by flights coming in and going out. The Portmarnock monitoring centre has commissioned decibel readings from the DAA and it is possible to see how high the readings are, well into 80 dBs. New housing estates, such as St. Marnock's Bay in south Portmarnock, are situated under the flight path and had planning permission granted in 2017, even though the noise in those estates is unbearable.

We should remember that the DAA releases average readings regarding decibel levels in order to prevent the sound contours being expanded. It is, in essence, hiding the extent of the problem. Residents are clear the noise contours are inadequate and we need the guidelines specified by the World Health Organization, WHO. The Government succeeded in bulldozing amendments through the Seanad. It does not matter if that happened because of a lack of knowledge or interest in the Seanad, it is the same parties involved, if different people. I have detailed the net effect of those amendments. I appeal to Fianna Fáil, even at this late hour, to come back on board with us or send its Deputies home in the same way as resulted in them being missing the last time. We could then ensure we get back to having the Bill we had when it left this House.

I also echo comments by other Deputies regarding the commitment the Minister gave in the Seanad. He agreed to meet various residents and groups. He went on the record in that House as being willing to engage with that section of the community in St. Margaret's. Residents in that area are on the floor. They were in the Seanad this week when the Bill was being discussed and they have been here in the Dáil previously when it has been discussed. These people are feeling vulnerable and betrayed by these two Houses. They have been living with this situation hanging over them for years. Although the residents have been involved in a process with the DAA, they feel it has not appropriately taken on board their considerations. I agree with them and I welcome the Minister stating he will pursue this matter. He said that in the House the other night and he has said it here again today. I also welcome the Minister contacting the DAA regarding this matter subsequent to the Seanad discussion.

The residents are not going to go away. They have lived in the area for generations and have used their own money to mount a challenge to these noise levels. They now owe €200,000 in legal fees as a result of the cases they have taken in the past ten years. These are just ordinary families and they are going to be forced out of their homes. A sum of €200,000 is a great amount of money for them. It is not a large amount of money for the DAA and will not impact on its profitability. I think I speak for all of us in this House when I state the DAA has to sit down with those people and come up with a better deal. I refer to the prices offered to them to give up their way of life. They are not just giving up four walls because these are intergenerational families and have lived in this area for years. They are not going to be able to replicate the lives they have in a rural community close to the city centre with the money offered by the DAA.

This is not about money, however. These people do not want to be rich. In an ideal world, they would just want everybody to leave them alone and let them stay where they are. Given that option is not being offered to them, there has got to be a settlement that allows them to replicate what they have now in a different area. They have not got that yet. Those people should also be compensated for the large legal costs incurred. I welcome the Minister stating he has pushed the DAA and written to that body. If anything can come out of this, let us at least get this aspect of what offer should be made to the residents in place. We could at least box that off. The way we have handled this Bill will, inevitably, strengthen the hands of those of us who have made complaints to the European Union regarding this matter. Many of those complaints have a good chance of succeeding. Even if they do not, there is a great chance of us being successful in a legal challenge to this Bill, given the manner in which it has been handled.

See this speech in context