Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)

I thank the Deputy for bringing this legislation forward. I am disappointed the Government is opposing it because there is significant merit in facilitating the passage of this legislation to the next Stage so we can have that discussion. The Minister of State cited the fact there has been done no pre-legislative scrutiny done on this legislation. Can he point me to any legislation picked out in lottery that we discuss here virtually every Thursday afternoon that has been through pre-legislative scrutiny? Is it effectively a waste of everybody's time to put legislation into the lottery if Ministers are simply going to ramble in and say there cannot be any discussion on it because it has not been through pre-legislative scrutiny? That is not how the lottery system works. The facility does not exist for the pre-legislative scrutiny to be done. There are plenty of Bills that will find themselves here on a Thursday evening that are worthy of merit, of which this is one, for which pre-legislative scrutiny has not been conducted but which would benefit from a Committee Stage debate and the chance to have a proper discussion. It is regrettable the Government is dismissing it in that way.

I acknowledge the role of Dublin Airport not just as a major employer in my constituency, but also as a driver for economic activity and development for north County Dublin, and indeed, all along the east coast and beyond. I am possibly the only representative from the area in the Chamber this evening who was there when we first debated the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019. My colleagues and I put forward amendments that would have ensured the Commission for Aviation Regulation would be the noise regulator. While we may not agree with every single word in the legislation we are discussing, we agree wholeheartedly that it was not the right decision to make Fingal County Council the noise regulator. The council's staff are not the best people; they are not best placed to regulate. In fact, they said that themselves at the time.

During the debate, correspondence emerged that had been sent to the Minister in which the director of planning at Fingal County Council said there was communication from the Minister's Department in November after the decision to appoint the council as the authority. She said: "[We have] an extensive remit in both shaping and determining the strategic direction of Dublin Airport through its land-use, planning and associated functions." She said the council was also responsible for determining applications for planning purposes. She stated: "In light of the existing complex and varied role that Fingal County Council plays as outlined above, it is considered that the council may not be best placed to act as the competent authority." She said the council does not have requisite competencies available in areas of aviation, operations, noise and economic feasibility assessments. She went on to suggest that other bodies would be better for the job. That is the director of planning and services at Fingal County Council at the time saying it was not sufficiently equipped and capability of doing the job, yet it was absolutely railroaded through here. There was an utter farce on the night of the vote. I listened to one Fianna Fáil Deputy, who is now the Minister for Transport, come in and speak against the motion. He banged the table. He was giving out. He was so angry and upset. When it came to the vote, for whatever reason the button was not pushed. The rest of his party voted to ensure the Bill went through even though the Opposition put forward constructive, well thought-out amendments that would have ensured that the airport live up to what it say it wants to be. It says it wants to be good neighbours. That is what my constituents want. They want the airport to be good neighbours. We recognise the importance of the airport, but we also recognise the importance of the people who live in the environs of the airport. It is no less than they are entitled to and deserve that they would have a noise regulator that they can have faith in.

In the Minister of State's contribution, he mentioned that the Minister for Transport is having "extensive engagements". That is brilliant. It is unfortunate that my constituents have not been made aware of it, but now he has alerted us to the fact there are extensive engagements happening, I am sure that they will make sure they make contact the Minister so that they might be part of those extensive engagements because if the Minister is having extensive engagements, then he absolutely has to be talking to the people who are living in the environs. Let us remember that these are the people who will be impacted by the regulation, whether it is light touch or otherwise. It is the people living around the airport who are going to be impacted by that and therefore is welcome that there will be extensive engagements. The Minister of State can bring my message back to his colleague the Minister for Transport that he will not find my constituents wanting when it comes to putting forward proposals, attending meetings, exchanging information or giving presentations to him because, as the Minister of State said, "extensive engagements" are what he is all about. That is to be welcomed. My constituents and Deputies Graves, Smith and O'Rourke's constituents will be more than equal to the task of providing the Minister with every single tiny little piece of information that he could require. These are people who are immersed in the issue of Dublin Airport and noise regulation. They have extensive knowledge. They are well placed to inform the Minister. I am sure they will be only too delighted to be part of the extensive communications and engagements that are going on.

Even at this stage, will the Minister of State reconsider the decision to oppose this legislation and to facilitate its passage to the next Stage? We would then have a chance to robustly scrutinise it. We may not agree in Sinn Féin with every single word in the legislation, but we certainly can agree and agree with Fingal County Council, which said it at the time, that it is not best agent to carry out this regulation. There are "better bodies", which is the expression that was used in the communication to the Minister. It would be worthwhile to have that engagement and tease this issue out, but that would require the Government facilitating the passage of this legislation to the next Stage. I hope the Government will reconsider the decision and allow this Bill to progress so we can have those important discussions.

See this speech in context