Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There certainly has been strong engagement across the House on this Bill over a period. As a result of that engagement, we succeeded in winning votes on a number of vital amendments on Report Stage. With the help of Fianna Fáil doing a flip-flop, the Government succeeded in having some of those important amendments overturned, which is why we are where we are today.

Insulation is critical to the residents affected by noise and before us we have legislation that purports to be a measure to protect airport neighbours. The difficulty we have is the reason for the Minister's desire to introduce this. His failure to amend the parts of the Bill that would have prohibited the DAA from coming back and overturning the two night restrictions means that noise insulation is of extra critical importance. The buyout and insulation measures were put in place in the context that the two planning restrictions for night flights would be upheld and embedded in any process. Once one is changed, as we know the DAA will seek to do, the other must also be changed. It is an open secret that the DAA is waiting for this legislation to be passed and for the competent authority to be established in order that it can overturn the conditions relating to night flights between 9 p.m and 7 a.m. on the new runway and the limit of 65 flights per night on the existing runway.

There are a couple of problems with this and, in fairness to the residents in the north of the county, they have done a large amount of diligent research into the matter. Ms Sabrina Joyce from Portmarnock in particular has made the point that the Bill we are now debating is seeking to overturn those conditions put in place by An Bord Pleanála in 2007. We all know this to be the case. The planning permission was given subject to these conditions after reviewing environmental impact statements and it was decided upon after appropriate assessments carried out by the board under strict European regulations, namely, the birds directive, or Directive 2009/147/EC, and the habitats directive. This is a critical point that we flagged before because of the Minister's mishandling of the Bill already. I have no doubt that this legislation will end up being the subject of legal challenge but if the Government wishes to dispense with the conditions relating to night flights and limited movements, appropriate assessments must be carried out from a legal perspective on the impact of night flights on special areas of conservation and special protection areas under flights paths towards all existing and proposed runways. These include Dublin Bay, Howth Head, Baldoyle Bay, Ireland's Eye, the Rockabill to Dalkey Island special area of conservation, Malahide Estuary, Rogerstown Estuary and so on. The disturbance of birds, particularly in light of a high number of protected species, will be important. We were here last week to pass a climate emergency measure and speaking about the loss of biodiversity but we cannot have both of these. We need to discuss the subject holistically. These matters should be taken into account before the Bill proceeds any further.

The Minister may not be aware that the UK's advisory Committee on Climate Change made critical warnings to the British Government about planned increases in aviation due at Heathrow, for example, indicating that these must be revisited and curbed in order to restrict CO2 emissions. Everybody is now allegedly a climate change campaigner but nevertheless we can see the current position in the Bill. The reality is that we need to achieve zero net emissions as quickly as possible. As a result, our figures and what we attempt to do must be revised in that context. This means that insulation is critical. The section relating to the insulation and buy-out is a bit of a contradiction.

There is no impact at all. The issue of a voluntary buyout is not even dealt with in the Bill. As for the noise insulation measures, however, what we are essentially saying in the legislation is that the noise contour levels applicable to the noise insulation programme shall remain as they are now, both before and after enactment of the legislation. As I said, the scheme was set on the basis of restricting it to 65 night flights. It was never intended to be in place for unlimited night flights so it is totally unacceptable as a means of mitigation for any household exposed to the night contours currently applicable under the night noise insulation programme. Therefore, we now have a huge contradiction here, and it comes back to what we know is at the heart of this, that is, the fact there is a legal obligation to take into account the impact of noise on surrounding communities. If DAA wants to loosen this obligation, it must come up with a much better insulation scheme and a much better buyout scheme than those now on the table. This legislation does not provide either, yet we know it will be used by DAA. We have a serious problem with that, and I find it absolutely reprehensible that the Government has gone in and forced unwelcome changes to try to subvert the wishes of this House.

See this speech in context