Mark Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for appearing in the House to present the legislation. We will reluctantly support the Bill to aid the development of the airport, although we share the concerns of many of the residents around the airport and in wider Fingal in respect of the manner in which the Government has approached the establishment of what it claims is an independent regulator. Ireland will become one of only three countries in the EU which, when transposing the legislation, have given the local authority the responsibilty. The Minister pointed out that the local authority is a large rate payer but argued that there will not be a conflict of interest. It is the definition of a conflict of interest, however, that the people who pay the regulator a sizeable portion of their annual budget would be monitored by the same organisation. As we know, the Irish Aviation Authority was originally intended to be the designated body but that was proven to be unlawful.

While all the arguments on the importance of the airport have been made well, we will again table amendments that we tabled in the Dáil and expand on them. Since 2016, we have spoken about the issue of the noise regulator and which body it should be. We have expressed our concerns time and again that the power will rest with the local authority, and we are concerned that it is being made such a large part of the local authority's responsibilities, given that there will be a director of services. Having considered the other options, we believe such a role is unnecessary and will not provide the necessary balance for the independence that we, or anyone else, would require. The requirement to have recourse to An Bord Pleanála is specifically mentioned in the Bill as a result of amendments we tabled.

We would like to hear again the Minister's views on the ability of people to access funding, on how much will be made available for those directly affected or whose properties may have been directly affected, on the target, which will almost double the amount of air traffic approaching Dublin Airport, on the flight path adjustments and on the capacity of the new authority to impose the changes. In light of the fact that once the runway is built, the flight path adjustments will be quite limited, I wonder what scope there will realistically be for the regulator to do anything in that regard. When we table those amendments, we hope the Minister will reconsider them in order that we can make more progress on shaping the Bill. As I stated, we are not happy with the alleged independence, which is the kernel of the issue. While an ability to appeal decisions surrounding the legislation is important, that the referee will be paid by the airport leads us to be concerned that the legislation does not contain even the cover of independence.The reason it is being proposed the Irish Airport Authority be designated is airport authorities are being and have been used in other jurisdictions as the mechanism to ensure independence, but there is too much scope for people to be justifiably concerned in Fingal County Council being chosen. Dublin Airport employs 20,000 people and there are a further 114,000 indirect jobs linked with it. We would like to see that number expanded. We would like to see more jobs being created, but the kernel of our concern about this necessary infrastructure is the ability of citizens to make sure their rights will be protected by a fair referee.

The Minister has accepted amendments we have brought forward. Please bear in mind that this is a slow process. Planning permission to build the second runway was granted in 2007. Nearly 12 years later the issue of noise is still being considered in the context of why it cannot be done by the Irish Aviation Authority. If it is not legally sound, surely there must be somebody else available. The Fingal County Council issue is the source of the gravest concern for citizens who believe they will not be listened to because of the fact that there is so much money involved. That is the only issue. Other than the fact that the airport is located in Fingal, no one would have a problem because then we would be able to say there was no direct tie or link between the two bodies, but, ultimately, there is. It has taken 12 years to get where we are, even though, as I said, planning permission for the second runway was granted in 2007 and the directive was issued in 2014. There have been huge arguments and we continue to argue about the need for legislation. The Government stated it was not necessary, but that has proved not to be the case. Now we are dragging our heels again. It is taking quite some time to deal with it, but we will table the amendments mentioned. As I said, we have engaged with the residents and, as a party, listened to their concerns and included them in amendments where it is legally possible to do so. We have listened to the people who will be directly affected by noise and who will need to have their homes insulated. For the people who need to have their properties and quality of life protected, the issues need to be expanded on further. We must ensure Fingal County Council has the capacity to address them not just for the residents in its area but also for those not in its area but who will be directly affected.

We will bring forward further amendments to the Bill which we reluctantly support because of the common good elements, given the necessity for this piece of infrastructure, as the Minister pointed out, to ensure the connectivity of Ireland to the world and in the light of Brexit and of all of the other issues we need to face. Expanding the economy and having an airport like Dublin which has the ability to service the needs of a growing economy should not be at the cost and expense of the citizens living around it.