Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Many questions have been raised during this debate. We have covered some of them already at great length while discussing other sections. I am happy that Deputy Broughan, Deputy Clare Daly and others were indulged again in questioning the independence of Fingal County Council. It is a fair point but one which we addressed fully on Second Stage and for many hours when discussing amendments. The arguments remain the same. The Dáil has decided. If this matter is to be revisited, that is a perfectly legitimate claim for Deputy Broughan to make. As far as I am concerned, however, I do not intend to repeat the answer to the argument that I have given many times in this House. The Deputy can raise the issue again on Fifth Stage, should he so wish.

Turning to the specific questions, Deputy Clare Daly had a query on insulation. I assure her that the Bill covers existing schemes and gives the noise regulator powers to amend and-or extend those schemes, as deemed necessary. New schemes could also be introduced.

Deputy Coppinger raised an issue which was also addressed by Deputy Clare Daly, Deputy Darragh O'Brien and others. She asked whether this legislation was introduced to overturn existing restrictions. That is not the purpose of this Bill.

There is an assumption in the House that the noise regulator is somehow on one side not the other and is going to make noise worse for the residents. That is not the intention of the Bill. The aim of the legislation is to create a fair playing field and to have a balanced approach. If anything, it will be of benefit to see a fair and equitable regime being run where the interests of the residents are of primary consideration. I am sure that those who talk about this have all read the document which is so important, namely, EU Regulation No. 598/2014. I cannot count the number of times the interests of local residents are mentioned in that document. If people are saying to me that this document is an empty or token gesture in their direction, that is obviously not the case.

Some of the objections which have been expressed here are sincere. We have had a very good debate in the House and I take my hat off to Deputies Brendan Ryan, Ellis, Broughan, Coppinger, Troy, Clare Daly and Darragh O'Brien. Everything has been sincerely expressed here. It is not the perfect Bill that everybody wants, including the Government. It is not our original Bill and it was not our original intention to do certain things which are in it. However, there has been a great deal of movement in the legislation towards the particular representations made by Members in the House. Deputy Darragh O'Brien is right when he claims credit for the changes on insulation. It is a fair claim. It is a political claim and that is fine too. Deputy Clare Daly is certainly entitled to claim credit for other amendments. There is no shame in that and the Government has no problem acknowledging it. It is somewhat unfair to suggest at this stage, however, that the Bill is there to overturn those restrictions which were introduced so many years ago. I do not have a clue what the noise regulator is going to say about those restrictions, nor does anyone else in the House. The Deputies are right and the DAA has made no secret about the fact that it will challenge those restrictions, as it is entitled to do. However, to suggest in the House that such a challenge is somehow a foregone conclusion and that a decision will be taken which is not in the interests of residents is unfair. We have not seen how the regulator operates yet. We have established a very fair, pan-European system which is there to protect the interests of all parties. Sometimes those interests are in conflict, which is why we have a regulator. Deputy Clare Daly said a legal challenge is coming. That is fair enough. If people want to take a legal challenge, there is nothing I can do about it. That is how the democratic system works and thank God that it does.

To Deputy Coppinger I note that the Bill balances the economic growth of the airport with the rights of local residents. That is right. I do not know how the Deputy would put it, but in my view it balances those interests. In fact, it probably tips the balance in favour of the residents, which I support. Their interests are vital. It may not be music to the Deputy's ears but, as I have had to repeat many times in the House, including on the last occasion, I have met every group of residents who have asked me to meet them. I am open to correction in that there may be one group I have not met, albeit it was not through any unwillingness to do so and was perhaps a matter of a time factor. Since the last time I was in the House, I have had discussions with the DAA and it has assured me it will continue, in accordance with an assurance I gave the House, to engage in meaningful discussions with the residents if the Bill is passed. It is not going to just cut them off and say the Bill is passed, the noise regulator is in and it is all over. The DAA will continue to try to accommodate residents and I will continue to assist in any way I can. That is what the Bill is about. It is not about confrontation, it is about conciliation. It is difficult. It is not a soluble problem. One cannot have an airport without noise. That is just not possible.

See this speech in context