Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am delighted to have the opportunity to move this Bill on Second Stage. To be clear, this Bill will not solve the many issues impacting negatively the daily lives of residents in north County Dublin and east County Meath, including aircraft noise, night-time flights and the passenger cap. Members of the Government who were in opposition when this Bill was introduced supported it at the time.

It would transfer the functions for regulating aircraft noise from the aircraft noise competent authority, ANCA, under the auspices of Fingal County Council, to the Environmental Protection Agency, recognising, as should be the case, the physical and mental health impacts aircraft noise has on individuals. This Bill is about transferring the function for regulating aircraft noise from Fingal County Council to the EPA. It is in response to the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019, which the Labour Party opposed at the time. This is a long-standing position of the Labour Party. We believe the function of aircraft noise monitoring should be within the EPA. That is our preferred option. This position goes back to Councillor Peter Coyle from the Howth-Malahide ward almost 20 years and it has been supported by our party and others ever since, including the current Fingal representation of Councillors Brian McDonagh, James Humphreys, Brendan Ryan and Corina Johnston, as well as Deputy Robert O’Donoghue.

Since the aircraft noise competent authority, ANCA, was set up under the auspices of Fingal County Council, I must make it clear that there are absolutely no issues when it comes to the probity or professionalism of any of the officials. This Bill is not being brought because of any concern about probity or professionalism. Rather, it relates to the fact that, structurally, we still believe, as we always have, that setting up aircraft noise monitoring under the auspices of a local authority is an unsound option. It is not the preferred option to tackle the issue of aircraft noise, which, as we know from a 2018 WHO report, has an impact not only on the mental and emotional well-being of people but on their physical health too. I and other Deputies in the Chamber today have attended a number of presentations by the forum group in Fingal and Meath whose members have given strong testimony regarding the impact on their health, backing up the World Health Organization’s assessment.

Aircraft noise can increase cardiovascular disease. People are 20% more likely to experience cardiovascular disease in areas of high aircraft noise. There are also issues of noise pollution and particulate matter in air pollution, which are caused by aircraft. While we are always told by the aviation industry that aircraft will be running on biofuels in a few years’ time and that they will make no noise and be practically gliders, that is absolute nonsense. We have been hearing that for years. The fact of the matter is that, now, we have poor air pollution and particulate matter landing and resting on the homes of people in south Swords and all over north County Dublin. It is having a real impact on people’s health.

An agency such as the EPA is best placed to provide that monitoring service. The reason for this is that Fingal County Council is ultimately a unit of local government that represents the interests of the residents living in the vicinity of the airport. One of the principal functions of local government, as set out in section 63 of the Local Government Act 2001, is to provide a forum for the democratic representation of the local community and to provide civic leadership for that community. It may be argued that by vesting the functions of aircraft noise with the chief executive of the county council rather than with the elected members, the Act has achieved a functional separation, which is an EU legal term. Functional separation has been achieved in the electricity and gas sectors, for example, when certain functions assigned to an undertaking are spun off into an independently operated entity, even though common ownership is preserved. True functional separation, however, requires a proper separation of functions. It is not achieved if notionally separated entities have mixed or overlapping functions. In this case, the chief executive of Fingal County Council has been given a noise regulation function under the 2019 Act which he or she must perform without direction from the elected members of the council. At the same time, however, he or she remains chief executive of a body whose principal statutory function is to provide a forum for the democratic representation of the local community and to provide that civic leadership for that community. In summary, the function of acting as a competent authority is vested in an individual whose principal existing statutory function is to advise and assist elected representatives of such local authority, while the council’s own statutory remit is to provide a forum for the democratic representation of the local community around the airport. In those circumstances, it can be called into question whether true functional separation can be achieved without the competent authority and the local residents via their elected members on the council, of which the competent authority continues to serve as chief executive. While that might sound convoluted, it points to the fact that we believe, and have always believed, that this has not been a sound structure for the monitoring of aircraft noise.

I listened to Michael O’Leary on Newstalk today telling my constituents to “suck it up” when it comes to aircraft noise. Why does Mr. O’Leary, with his vast wealth, not buy a property right under one of the unexpected and uninsulated flight paths and put his money where his mouth is? We saw how he approached the previous Minister for Transport with a view that insulting and bullying would cow him into certain actions, with a focus then on the passenger cap and disregarding any and all resident concerns, without due understanding, - deliberately, I believe - to what has taken place in Fingal regarding public consultation, planned take-off and landing routes and noise insulation schemes. At the end of the day, the people living here are airport people. They work in the airport and want it to thrive. They want the airport to operate in an honest, open and transparent manner and for it to engage with residents in such a way.

I hope that the Minister for Transport, Deputy O’Brien, who shares my constituency, will not give in to such transparent tactics from Mr. O’Leary and others in the aviation industry when they try to force their all planes, any planes, all day, any night approach to Dublin Airport. There is a lot of strong local opinion and experience on this issue. The Minister, Deputy O’Brien, will have received many of the same emails that I and my colleagues in the Chamber have received. The setting-up of ANCA and its functioning over the past five years have never persuaded local residents that it is the right setup for the monitoring aircraft noise.

I reiterate that this Bill is not designed to solve the many problems. Rather, it is just to put right a structural mistake made by the former Minister, Mr. Shane Ross, when he put the responsibility for aircraft noise under Fingal County Council. I hope the Government will support this pro-health, pro-community Bill and that we can move towards having a more modern, sophisticated and health-based approach to aircraft and aviation noise.

Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for the opportunity to speak to the House about the important issue of aircraft noise and the aviation sector more generally. I am confident we can all agree, even though it is so often stated, that, as an island nation, aviation plays a crucial role in our economy and society. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Government’s position on Second Stage of this Private Member’s Bill, the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation (Transfer of Functions) Bill 2024. The Bill proposes to repeal section 3 of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019, which designates Fingal County Council as the competent authority for the purposes of the EU aircraft noise regulation and to transfer the functions of the competent authority for the purposes of that regulation from Fingal County Council to the Environmental Protection Agency, and to provide for connected matters. After careful consideration, the Government’s position is to oppose this Bill for a number of reasons, which I will outline shortly.

First, however, the Government recognises the intentions of the Deputy in preparing this Bill, which is to ensure proper and timely regulation of aircraft noise. I also wish to assure the Deputy that Government Members share a number of his concerns about the impact of aircraft noise for those living in and around Dublin Airport. My colleague, the Minister, Deputy O’Brien, has been engaging extensively with a range of stakeholders on the matter in recent months, including residents, airlines, the airport and regulators. Indeed, when the 2019 Act was being drafted, Fianna Fáil colleagues engaged significantly in the development of the text and proposed a number of amendments to the then draft legislation to strengthen the independent functioning of the noise regulator.

However, while brief in its content, the Bill is potentially far reaching in effect. As I will now outline, there are a number of reasons the Government cannot support it. First, the Bill, as drafted, lacks pre-legislative scrutiny and detail on the proposed transfer of function. When the 2019 Act was being drafted, the process was subject to an extensive consultation and scrutiny with key stakeholders.

I am sure the House will agree that there is a reason it is generally the case that complex and far-reaching legislation such as the 2019 Act is developed within the confines of Government and follows strict processes, including lengthy consultation, legal advice from the Attorney General, scrutiny by Oireachtas committees and extensive engagement with stakeholders. This draft Bill has not been subject to such a robust process of scrutiny or public consultation and as such it does not include the necessary detail on a number of key issues, most notably how the transfer of functions between Fingal and the EPA would be achieved in practical terms. It is unrealistic to transfer the functions of the competent authority to the EPA in circumstances where it is not clear if the organisational capability and structure of the EPA has been considered and whether the requisite planning and noise expertise is in place. As drafted, the Bill appears to assume that systems and personnel exist to give effect to its provisions. However, this is simply not the case.

At the time of drafting of the 2019 Act, a number of agencies were considered for the role of competent authority with responsibility for noise regulation, including the EPA. When evaluating the various options available, a number of factors were considered, not least the availability of potential agencies to provide an independent aircraft noise regulation process in accordance with EU Regulation No. 598/2014, which deals with the establishment of rules and procedures regarding the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports. This regulation implements the International Civil Aviation Organization's balanced approach to aircraft noise management, which takes into consideration a range of measures such as operational restrictions, noise mitigation techniques and land use planning before implementing any noise-related operating restrictions. Therefore, a key consideration when selecting the competent authority was that it required organisational experience in assessing planning applications. In short, it was concluded that the EPA did not have the requisite experience in assessing planning applications to fulfil this role. I am informed that this remains the case.

In 2006, the EPA was designated as a national authority under section 5(1) of the European Communities (Environmental Noise) Regulations 2018. This role requires the EPA to exercise general supervision over the functions and actions of noise-mapping bodies and action planning authorities, including Fingal, with regard to the Dublin Airport noise map and action plan. It further requires the EPA to provide guidance to such bodies where necessary. Any consideration of the EPA for the role of competent authority would require an assessment of whether it could be considered independent in its capacity as a competent authority under EU Regulation No. 598/2014 given its existing role.

Regarding the independence of the competent authority, as outlined earlier, the designation of Fingal as the competent authority was subject to extensive debate in the Dáil and Seanad and during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the 2019 Act. I am informed that the Department of Transport sought legal advice on the matter at the time to ensure the selection of Fingal met the independence criterion of EU Regulation No. 598/2014. As the Deputy is aware, the 2019 Act explicitly states that the competent authority shall be independent and not subject to the direction of any other persons, including the elected council. While within Fingal, the aircraft noise competent authority, commonly known as ANCA, operates as a distinct and independent entity, a further significant factor for consideration is the fact that the regulation of noise at Dublin Airport is invariably tied to the development of the airport and the planning process. In this respect, Fingal was adjudged to have the necessary experience to assess planning applications and have both the organisational capability and structure to take on this regulatory role.

My fourth and final point is that the 2019 Act provides for a review of the performance of ANCA within seven years of enactment with regard to its functions under the legislation. The first such regular periodic review is due to be commenced by September 2026. I firmly believe that if we are to achieve coherent, lasting improvements in regulation, we must ensure that our legislative efforts are co-ordinated and consistent. I believe that pre-empting this formal review process at this juncture, no matter how well intentioned, would both undermine the intent behind the original legislation and existing regulation of noise at Dublin Airport.

Dublin Airport is a critical driver for economic growth and supports many jobs both directly and indirectly. It is important to the Government to balance these economic benefits of aviation with the objectives of the national aviation policy and the legitimate rights of local residents, which is why it is essential that we have a robust, practical regulatory framework for aircraft noise. In this context, I am pleased to say that my colleague, the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and this Government are committed to reviewing and updating the national aviation policy in line with the commitment in the programme for Government. As the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, has previously indicated, he will engage with colleagues across the House as work on that review progresses in the latter part of the year. For the numerous reasons I have outlined, the Government considers that this Private Members' Bill should be declined a Second Reading.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt ar an mBille um Thorann Aerárthaí (Aerfort Bhaile Átha Cliath) a Rialáil (Feidhmeanna a Aistriú), 2024. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Duncan Smith. I thank him for the effort that he has put into this Bill. It addresses an important issue, namely how we manage the impact of a growing airport on the surrounding environment and local communities. This Bill recognises that the current framework guiding the regulation of aircraft noise is not fit for purpose and a change in approach is needed.

The current framework is guided by the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019. Importantly, this Act designated Fingal County Council as the aircraft noise competent authority. Sinn Féin pointed out the Act's shortcomings at the time, all of which have come to bear. This has led us to the situation that we are in today. At the time, we raised serious questions about the capacity of Fingal County Council to act independently, which was supposedly a key condition of its designation as ANCA, especially if sufficient resourcing and staffing was not put in place. We also raised the importance of health and safety issues and of following international best practice but, unsurprisingly, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael chose to ignore our constructive engagement and rejected our amendments at the time, which was disappointing and frustrating. It is even more so today, especially since many of the concerns that we raised then remain concerns today. I am sure my fellow Deputies, Graves and O'Reilly, will tell the Minister of State about the ongoing issues that their constituents face in the area.

As Sinn Féin transport spokesperson, I recognise the importance of a robust regulatory framework in order to shore up support for sustainable expansion and to rebuff claims of illegitimacy. As a small, open island economy, Dublin Airport is strategically important. It is central to our economy and essential to its growth. It is essential that the growth is managed properly and that the needs of local residents are not just treated as collateral damage, as we heard earlier on. We must strike the correct balance. Sinn Féin has always supported the development of Dublin Airport. What we do differently to Government is that we advocate for both strategic and responsible development. These goals are not unique. If done correctly, they can go hand in hand. We want to ensure that Dublin Airport can operate a good neighbour policy. Effective regulation is central to this and a properly resourced, independent regulator has always been our priority.

We also believe that the State's regional airports should be treated as a clear strategic priority, especially in the delivery of balanced regional growth. As it stands, more than 84% of all flights in the State are processed through Dublin Airport. Many of these arrivals, upwards of 40%, go on to travel to different parts of the island where other regional airports are closer. I want to speak for a moment about those regional airports, which are more than just transport hubs. They are lifelines for communities, engines of economic growth and gateways to the world. From Donegal to Knock, and in my constituency, Kerry, these airports connect rural Ireland to global opportunities and ensure that no corner of our country is left behind. For example, Kerry Airport was founded in 1968 with a modest grass runway. Over the decades, it has expanded significantly, with major upgrades in the 1980s and 1990s, including a new terminal and extended runway to accommodate larger aircraft.

It is now a vital link for residents, tourists and businesses alike. It is trending higher in 2025 than in 2024. I pay tribute to John Mulhern and his team at Kerry Airport. There are four new French routes, including to the Dordogne. There is a new arrivals area. The departures area has been expanded in an impressive way. The airport has good cash reserves. There is a massive private aircraft facility and a business there also. Whether it is facilitating tourism to our landscapes, supporting local enterprises with efficient logistics or enabling families to stay connected across borders, Kerry Airport is a pillar of regional development. While more research needs to be done, there is a strong case for development of our regional aviation infrastructure.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Ann Graves (Dublin Fingal East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I acknowledge Deputy Smith for bringing forward this legislation. For a resident and somebody who is representing people in the affected area, it is a matter of dire importance that some regulation is put in place. Sinn Féin has always had concerns on the potential conflict of interest with ANCA as the noise regulator. This is not least because of ANCA's and Fingal County Council's financial dependencies on the DAA. ANCA is based within Fingal County Council. The Minister of State should do a quick Google of the executive staff within Fingal County Council. There he will see the director of ANCA listed among the other members of staff in Fingal County Council. There are questions on conflicts, which diminish ANCA's capacity to act independently. This link between Fingal County Council and ANCA, whose role is to monitor and regulate where necessary for the management of aircraft noise in the communities around Dublin Airport, remains a real concern for local residents and groups representing those affected by aircraft noise, in particular, St. Margaret's and The Ward group and Fingal Organised Residents United Movement, FORUM.

They represent more than 30,000 people across Fingal and Meath. This is not an issue that just affects Swords, the airport and its surrounds. I represent the people of Fingal East and each of the areas - Swords, Malahide, Donabate, Portmarnock and Portrane - are affected by aircraft noise. It is not just the areas in close proximity to the airport.

Sinn Féin submitted amendments to the 2019 Bill, proposing taking a balanced approach: incorporating the International Civil Aviation Organization's agreed hierarchy of measures designed to reduce the impact of noise, and the WHO's night noise guidelines for Europe. Sinn Fen's amendments also proposed the Commission for Aviation Regulation should be the regulator and that the average noise exposure would be reduced to below 40 decibels at night and that an assessment of the impact on the well-being and health of local residents be undertaken. These amendments were defeated by the Government, which included the current Minister for Transport, Deputy O'Brien, who is a TD who represents the people of the area, so Sinn Féin voted against the Bill.

Changes to planning conditions require planning applications and an approval process. The conditions were set to manage noise, traffic and environmental impact. The conditions also included delivering on the infrastructure deficits, including the road network, which have not been addressed. For anybody living in the area, trying to get in and out of Swords is impossible. We were supposed to invest heavily in the roads around the airport and that has not happened. The DAA acknowledged the airport will exceed 32 million passenger numbers both in 2024 and 2025. In fact, the DAA has breached many of its planning conditions from the outset.

Of major concern is the deviation from the agreed flight paths and the proposed changes to night-time flight times. These will have a major impact and repercussions on the health and well-being of residents living in the areas affected. Deputy Smith spoke about cardiovascular disease, sleep deprivation and broken sleep patterns. That is a regular occurrence for people who live there. If the number of flights at night-time people's health will deteriorate. Looking at best practice, many airports in Europe and internationally are now reducing their night-time flights because they acknowledge their impact on the mental and physical health of those living in areas where aircraft noise is an issue.

ANCA, in its role as a regulator of aircraft noise, ruled in January 2024 that the applications in relation to passenger caps require an assessment of the need for noise-related action. As a former councillor in Fingal County Council, I consistently questioned the breaches of the planning conditions by the DAA, particularly in regard to the deviation from flight paths and the impact this has had on residents. No one wants to stand in the way of progress. I recognise the DAA is a major employer in the Fingal area. I have in the past and will continue to champion strategic but also responsible development but the DAA is not a good neighbour. We need to strive for balanced development along with addressing the impacts on local residents.

It is interesting the Minister of State noted the Minister for Transport has been communicating with people. We have had multiple public meetings throughout the area. Each of them has been a sell-out with full houses at every single time. All of the local representatives have attended them but the Minister has never shown his face at any of them. He is not discussing or consulting or communicating with the residents. He may be talking to Kenny Jacobs, Michael O'Leary and other key players but he is certainly not talking to the residents in the areas affected.

The way to achieve a good relationship with the DAA is effective regulation and, to this end, an appropriately resourced and independent regulator is a priority for Sinn Féin.

I have and will continue to support the regionalisation of the Irish aviation industry to address regional imbalances in the sector and drive much-needed economic growth to different parts of the country. I am delighted to see there is an increase in the number of flights in and out of Cork, which is another DAA airport. There are other airports that also need to be utilised and Deputy Daly mentioned a lot of them. We have a great road network, particularly from Shannon. We can use those airports and it will reduce the number of flights into, and the dependency on, Dublin Airport, and help to rebuild our more rural areas.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill and I thank Deputy Smith for bringing it forward. The usual approach from the Government is to delay these Bills by 12 months or let them go to Committee State to die. It is a particular point when the Government opposes a Bill. I would say it was a surprise but it is entirely consistent with my experience of how Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments deal with airport-related issues, Dublin Airport-related issues and airlines, whether Ryanair or Aer Lingus. At the root of that is the issue here because there is a widespread suspicion within the communities of north Dublin and Meath East that there is not fair play in any of these discussions, negotiations or transactions. There is no confidence in ANCA. There is the potential there for a conflict of interest and there is a sense it is in the wrong place and there is too close a connection with Fingal County Council and the DAA. The point was made about the role of the chief executive and the relationship with councillors, responsibility around economic development and the relationship with the DAA. This Bill was an opportunity to rectify some of that even if it is not perfect.

I echo Deputy O'Reilly's point on the argument that there was no pre-legislative scrutiny. We can throw the whole lot out the window on that basis. The Minister of State can run that back to the Department and hopefully it will not come back with that one the next time around.

I met with representatives of ANCA. As Deputy Smith's said, there is no question in terms of the integrity of these individuals or anything like that; it is about the structure and approach ANCA takes and the methodology it applies. It is the issue of modelling versus measuring. An awful lot of what ANCA is doing is not actually measuring noise; it is modelling noise and ANCA gets that information from the DAA and the airlines. That is another issue that is problematic. There is a huge amount to be done to restore confidence.

The Minister of State is not accepting this Bill. I ask him to review that position but I do not expect he will agree to do that. Wherever we go from here, these issues will continue unless the Government and the Minister change the approach.

Another aspect where there is no confidence is the sense that there is protection for and a separate set of rules applying to the airlines and the DAA - maybe because they are really well connected or whatever - than the rest of us, for example, in regard to planning law in this State.

I specifically want to raise the issue of the flight paths, the noise ANCA is supposed to be measuring and the fact the flight paths that are being operated were never intended or planned for. Deputy Smith and I sat on the previous Oireachtas committee and in June of last year, the DAA came before the committee and agreed to review flight paths by the end of the year. There are really concrete proposals from very well-informed people who are fully committed to Irish aviation and who are employed in Irish aviation but have that novel thing of wanting to see it done in the right way and, at the very least, compliant with planning law.

They have put forward clear proposals for how we might get a best fit in terms of the flight paths. Like others, I acknowledge the really hard work of the St. Margaret's The Ward resident group, the group of residents in the Wotton and the North Runway Technical Group. The North Runway Technical Group in particular has done a lot of work regarding the flight paths. At a meeting of the previous transport committee on 19 June 2024, the DAA said it would look at that. I have repeatedly pursued that. The most recent response I have is from 8 April. Really, we are getting a fudge. Nothing is happening. I get a really long answer on DAA-headed paper but in truth nothing is happening. There were access to information requests which confirm that is the case. At the root of all of this is that point I made regarding the sense within the wider community that there is not fair play here. There is one set of rules for one group of people, largely because of their connections, power and influence. It is always that way. All we have to do is look at election launches for that type of connection. As I said, this legislation could have done something to address that. The Minister is not accepting it but the problem is not going to go away. The issues of noise, the operation of the airport and, for the residents in east Meath, Ashbourne and the Wotton, Ratoath, the issue of the flight paths being non-compliant with basic planning and environmental law are not going to wash.

Gillian Toole (Meath East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit and I thank Deputy Smith as well for affording us the opportunity to discuss this issue. I acknowledge and put on record the willingness of the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, to meet resident groups and the North Runway Technical Group as recently as 18 June this year. Those meetings - any that I have been able to sit in at - have taken the thrust of always being solution-focused. I will try not to duplicate what colleagues have said already and I will edit my comments. Regarding the Bill specifically and the possibility of the transfer of functions from Fingal County Council and the Aircraft Noise Competent Authority to the EPA, I am a bit confused. As the Minister of State stated, from the correspondence of the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, the EPA was designated in 2006 as the national authority to include Fingal County Council, liaise with it and Dublin Airport Authority for noise mapping etc., and the EPA would give guidance to those bodies. Yet, I have email correspondence to a member of the North Runway Technical Group in the form of two replies from the EPA from August and September 2024 where the EPA states categorically that it has not been assigned any functions in relation to noise from aircraft and cannot assume responsibility for a particular area unless required by statute or by decision of the Government. That is pretty much repeated then in the correspondence of 14 August 2024. I would be one to say "Yes, absolutely" if there is a review coming. In or around September 2026 is what the Minister of State said was the time. However, we know more from a presentation from residents of St. Margaret's The Ward and of Meath East, including Ashbourne, Ratoath and the Wotton areas. They had a launch in Buswell's Hotel of a health impact study by Dr. Pat McCloughan. With a healthcare background, it is something to sit there, listen and see the figures. Some €800,000 per year is the estimated health impact cost on approximately 30,000 residents who are impacted. I can appreciate the attempt to get the balance between advancing the Bill and the pending statutory review after seven years in September 2026 but I would implore, based on the health impacts and the significant cost, a revision of that.

There is also another health impact that has come to light since Tuesday and that is the bird strike to an Aer Lingus aircraft that was headed for New York. There is a bird-rich compensatory habitat that Dublin Airport Authority owns in the area of Kilsallaghan. If we take that highly significant and potential, but thankfully averted, catastrophe, and include that in the mix, the whole issue of the flight paths that are deviating from the 2007 permission that was granted would add to the urgency and the need to take all of this in the round. As I said at the outset, the North Runway Technical Group, comprising commercial and private pilots, has provided a solution that will allow the growth in capacity, safeguard the residents and lessen - if not knock out altogether - the noise impact that is currently experienced. There is a win-win for all parties. I know the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, is well aware but I urge the Minister of State, summer recess or not, to please take action on all of this. That is even without taking into account the regional opportunities. I made a submission to that effect to the national planning framework review some months ago. There are solutions here and we collectively must have a sense of urgency and action on this. I can understand the statutory review, the seven-year process and the September end, but when there are solutions there to provide a win-win for all parties I ask that we at least look at an earlier opportunity here. Regarding the noise monitoring, as it currently stands there are margins for error in the existing process. Residents, if they are impacted, monitor their complaints. They log their complaints with Dublin Airport Authority and then that information is gathered together and we have Lden figures and Lnight figures. That information is passed to the Aircraft Noise Competent Authority for reports, etc. We have had episodes in the area of Ratoath and Ashbourne, and I am sure it would have been experienced by residents in Fingal as well, where it was not possible to log a complaint and there were hours, even days, on occasion where the real-time complaints could not be logged by residents. As somebody with a background in science where evidence and data are so important, putting these extra stages in place is increasing margins of error. Given its role and its authority for all other types of pollution, noise pollution going to the EPA would seem to be an obvious one for me. As I said, I am between a rock and a hard place but given the health impacts, I urge for swifter action on this.

Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all of the Deputies for their contributions today, the points they have raised and Deputy Smith for bringing this important topic to the House. As set out in my earlier remarks, the Government fully recognises the importance of having an open and transparent noise regulation system. The development of Dublin Airport in a sustainable manner that considers the impact on local communities is something for which the Minister for Transport has always strongly advocated. The Minister has committed to ensuring all relevant agencies engage effectively with residents impacted by noise, flight movements and airport operations. In this regard, I am aware the Department of Transport and the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, regularly engage with the Dublin Airport Authority on a number of matters including noise affecting communities around Dublin Airport. I understand the DAA has assured the Department of Transport that it continues to regularly engage with the community and stakeholders on issues related to noise at the airport via its community engagement team, which conducts visits to local homes and schools to discuss a wide range of issues ranging from flight paths to noise mitigation measures.

This is in addition to the large volume of email responses and updates issued to residents and local elected representatives. These kinds of earnest and regular engagements are essential. We cannot afford to limit our economic opportunities simply due to a reticence around having tough conversations about growth, sustainability and noise regulation. Ensuring there is a robust regulatory framework for aircraft noise at Dublin Airport is not about blocking progress. It is about managing the sustainable growth of the airport while also protecting the rights of people who live within the vicinity of the airport and under flight paths. This Government firmly believes these concepts can co-exist successfully - a thriving Dublin Airport and robust noise regulation with an independent regulator. That is why I highlighted in my opening remarks the planned update of the national aviation policy. Ireland deserves an aviation policy that is future focused and a national the national aviation policy will need to take account of the changed aviation landscape since 2015. In the context of aircraft noise, I expect this will include reflecting the importance of fit-for-purpose noise regulation in line with the balanced approach concept for aircraft noise. The way to achieve this balance is by listening to all stakeholders using modern technology and applying smart policy solutions. This means implementing reasonable controls, ensuring that noise is measured and capped within agreed levels, flight path management and making sure residents are consulted with and kept informed.

For context, in the implementation of the 2019 Act, in its role as aircraft noise regulator, Aircraft Noise Competent Authority, ANCA, previously defined a noise abatement objective, NAO, policy for managing the effects of aircraft noise emissions on the surrounding communities and environment for Dublin Airport. This is effectively a plan to ensure any growth at the airport occurs in the most sustainable manner possible. On an annual basis, ANCA has a remit to review the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures in achieving the NAO for Dublin Airport. I understand a review of noise levels and their effects on local communities has been initiated by ANCA. Through this process, ANCA will evaluate whether the noise impact at Dublin Airport since the opening of the new runway is of a scale that requires new noise mitigation measures or possible operating restrictions. In relation to the performance of ANCA at the regulator, the Government is confident the current system with ANCA as the independent regulator for the management of noise at Dublin Airport is proper and effective. When the 2019 Act was being drafted, the Department of Transport carried out extensive policy and legal examination to determine how best to introduce a noise regulation regime which on the one hand fully accords with EU regulation 598/2014 and on the other aligned with our existing planning and development and environmental frameworks. The outcome of these deliberations was the conclusion that the only certain way to achieve this way by primary legislation and that Fingal County Council was the best option. Further, as I set out earlier, the first periodic review of the competent authority as provided for in the legislation is due to be commenced in September 2026. It is important we do not pre-empt the outcome of this work before it even begins.

In conclusion, I am firmly of the belief that the best approach to ensuring effective noise regulation at Dublin Airport in as comprehensive and cohesive a manner as possible is through a review as provided by the 2019 Act and, separately, the development of a new national aviation policy. The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and his officials will continue to work closely with all relevant stakeholders to monitor the issue and ensure the existing regulatory framework continues to apply the balanced approach to the issue of noise management. While I thank Deputy Smith for introducing the Bill and initiating this debate, for all of the reasons outlined, the Government will oppose this Bill. Overall, it has serious concerns about the Bill and if enacted it would have the opposite of its intended impact and actually negatively impact noise regulation at Dublin Airport.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I fundamentally disagree with the assertions of the Minister of State on the provisions of this Bill. I thank Deputies O'Reilly, Graves, O'Rourke, Pa Daly and Toole for contributing to the debate. These Deputies do not just contribute to the debates when the lights and cameras are on. They have been at every committee and public meetings for years on this issue. There is no other issue that unites politicians in north County Dublin more than the issue of the airport and the various related matters. In the recent development plan - Deputy Graves might correct me if I am wrong - there was one motion that was supported by every single member of the council. It was 40 votes to zero in relation to aircraft noise. That included members of the Minister of State's party and every single party. There is no other issue like it. These are people who represent the airport, have employees as our constituents and understand the economic importance of the airport yet still also understand a balanced approach to noise and understand the problem. We put forward an approach in the EPA. Sinn Féin's preferred option would be the IAA, which was the CAR. Either would be a much better approach than Fingal County Council.

I advise the Minister of State never to come to a Thursday evening debate and say a Bill did not have pre-legislative scrutiny and therefore should not go any further. That is a nonsense. That option is not open to us, as Deputy O'Reilly said. The Bill we are trying to amend had pre-legislative scrutiny in 2018 and 2019. It did not convince Fianna Fáil. It may not have opposed it but did not support it either. Fianna Fáil submitted an amendment to call for a five-year review on the setting up of ANCA, which would have meant a review in 2023 or 2024. We would already have had the review if Fianna Fáil got its way. Fianna Fáil is all over the shop on this issue. The Labour Party and Sinn Féin do not want ANCA and nor does Deputy Toole seem to want it - Opposition, Opposition, and Opposition-ish - do not want it. Fingal County Council did not want it. It said on record it did not have the competencies. If you ask the DAA, it would not say it wants it either. Fianna Fáil did not want it and the Minister apparently did not want it. Who wants it? Why is it there? Is it because former Minister Shane Ross wanted it for some bizarre reason? I advise the Minister to through the debate and amendments from 2018 - his own party's amendments. It is outrageous this Bill is being opposed at this Stage and does not even have a chance to go to Committee Stage. The Government is scared of Committee Stage because it knows from its own history it is a flawed setup and should not be the way to monitor aircraft noise, with all the complex outcomes. It is a disgrace. The Government and the Minister of State are running away from a debate they know they cannot win and they know they are unsolid ground.

We as public representatives will have to continue to fight this in this Chamber, in committees and at public meetings. I acknowledge all the public representatives here, as I did at the start, for all the work they do in all the forms they have the opportunity to do it. They should have the opportunity to debate this Bill and amend it if they so wish on Committee Stage. Unfortunately, they are being denied that. We will probably bring other Bills and amendments forward where we can to improve the situation of aircraft noise and aviation in general.

Jen Cummins (Dublin South Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 16 July 2025.