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

I wish to clarify matters. I spoke at length on 18 April about this and about the fact that this whole section is in the Bill at our insistence. It is amendments Deputy Troy and I tabled, which were carried, that take the noise insulation scheme and the voluntary purchase scheme away from DAA and give them to the competent authority. That is what this section does. That is factual. There is no contradiction here. That is what happens, it is in the Bill for the first time, and that is significant. It is also significant that it will no longer be the airport authority that makes the offers. The offers until now to most of the households, particularly those on the west side of the airport, in the St. Margaret's area and old Cloghran, have been wholly inadequate, and I have said that time and again. The provisions of the scheme and the valuations in it have been inadequate. This is a way of moving the matter forward, and people should be honest and recognise this rather than making statements that are not factual. The fact of the matter is that now, for the first time, a competent authority, not Dublin Airport Authority, will decide on the terms, the scope and the scale of what is at present the voluntary purchase scheme, which is an insufficient scheme. That is a fact, it is indisputable, and this is in the Bill because of the amendments we tabled on Committee Stage, which others did not support. The provisions are important and they are in the Bill.

I worked extensively with officials in the Department on noise contours and the noise insulation scheme to ensure the scheme be taken away from Dublin Airport Authority because of charges of conflict of interest and other charges, with which I agree. If the noise insulation scheme is expanded, it will cost the airport authority more money. This is why I wanted the scheme to fall under the remit of the competent authority and why I wanted the Bill to deal with "contours", not a "contour". This is another change we made to ensure that this was dealt with in terms of the new runway and the new flight paths, both in and out, and that there would be an independent arbiter to determine who was in the scheme and who was not. Again, this is indisputable, so there is no point at this late stage in trying to muddy the waters. The provision is in the legislation now, and that is significant because it will bring fairness back into it. It also moves the situation forward. If this is not passed, we will be left with the status quo, with what we have, which is an insufficient insulation scheme and a wholly insufficient voluntary purchase scheme. We would just be saying we are not going to do anything with it, that we are going to just leave it as it is and that we are going to have another four, five, six or seven years of people not being able to move on with their lives, not being able to make decisions as to where they will live and not being able to get their houses, apartments and businesses insulated. That is the alternative. While not everything in the Bill is perfect, there have been major improvements, particularly in this area, in section 20.

What this legislation does not do - and I wish to correct a charge Deputy Clare Daly has just made in this regard - is set aside any of the restrictions in place at present. To tell people otherwise is utterly incorrect and irresponsible. I am completely opposed to unrestricted night flights, as most people are, as indeed my party is. That is a decision the competent authority will make, and it could very well end up with An Bord Pleanála, which is mentioned in the Bill, again at our insistence. If the decision ended up with An Bord Pleanála, it would be an application made by the airport authority, which would have to be adjudicated on by the competent authority. Therefore, the section does not set the restrictions aside should the second runway open. At present, as we know, there are no restrictions under the existing runway in law. When the new runway opens, the An Bord Pleanála restrictions will take place. Should DAA wish to do so, it will take a case to the competent authority, which will be decided and which anyone can then appeal further, whether or not he or she objected at the first stage. Again, this is in the legislation at our insistence.

There have, then, been significant changes made to this scheme. The Bill does not set aside these restrictions, nor should it ever do so. I understand the points Deputy Brendan Ryan was trying to make by way of his amendment to this amendment. I think we had to tidy up the initial amendment we tabled on the previous Stage in order that it did not have the unintended consequence of being applicable to anywhere across the country that may be impacted by flight paths. We want this to apply to the adjacent communities both to the east and to the west of the airport, and indeed north and south of the runways, when applicable, in order that we are not expanding the scheme to other parts of the country. By passing this amendment, it is a significant change in the Bill and one for which we fought. I have circulated the official note from the Department which I read into the record on 18 April. It is dated 11 April and states exactly what this change will mean, that is, independent regulation, oversight and application of a revised and, it is hoped, a greatly improved voluntary purchase scheme and expanded noise insulation scheme, which are needed right now. If we do not do this, this scheme will not be expanded because it will remain in the gift of Dublin Airport Authority, and I do not want that to happen.

See this speech in context