I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I specifically support amendment No. 12 which, along with several other amendments, aims to tighten up this legislation. It is a very frustrating experience for those who are part of this process and who are trying to contribute positively to it and to influence, shape and improve Government legislation. Many people engaged in good faith, not just in these Chambers but also communities and representative and stakeholder groups at pre-legislative scrutiny. I would say very many of them do not see their contributions reflected in the legislation produced. Many of them, myself included, wonder whether the legislation changed a jot based on the pre-legislative scrutiny contributions. Others have made the point regarding the two-hour debate in which we will get through only a fraction of the amendments. In his response the Minister might indicate whether he is going to accept any of the amendments or whether this is another exercise in futility. I support amendment No. 12 in the name of Deputy Ahern, and I thank him for bringing it forward. It is indicative of the type of change that needs to happen in this legislation. As it stands, the line, "the international reputation of the State in respect of air transport," is vague. It is unclear what counts as a risk to the international reputation of the State, so it could be used freely for any ministerial order. Removing the line ensures the Minister's power is not limitless. Recent controversies within the DAA were allowed to go on for months and years, causing significant reputational damage to the State's aviation sector, yet we did not see the Minister act to bring them to an end. It is an incredibly loose and vague line, is subject to significant challenge and is reflective of a real looseness within this legislation. Regardless of one's position on the passenger cap, and I live in and represent a constituency that is not far from the airport, many people understand that it was of its time and maybe is not the most logical thing for road capacity. It is also ignored on an annual basis. People understand the logic of growing the airport in a sustainable way but they also live with what they would see as essentially an airport and airlines that are given free rein, with complete disregard of their neighbours, responsibilities and the types of obligations on individual households and other businesses and they wonder why there is a different set of rules for the DAA and several airlines. I would have thought this legislation would be a good opportunity to address some of those concerns. Instead, it looks like the Government wants to quickly lift the passenger cap, give significant powers to the Minister and march on regardless, paying no attention to flight paths that were never intended or provided for but have been questioned since the very second they came into being and that technically, in the words of the DAA not just at this transport committee, but the previous transport committee, are actively under reconsideration, although there is no timeline for that. It is similar with regard to night-time flights, compliance with planning, being a good neighbour, the operation of the Aircraft Noise Competent Authority, ANCA, and its independence, and noise monitoring and mitigation. For me, it is wholly unacceptable that none of that is being addressed in this Bill. Practically all of the amendments, certainly from us in Sinn Féin, sought to address those weaknesses in the Bill but also concerns in the local community and more widely, including among people with an interest in the sustainable growth of Dublin Airport, in balanced regional development and in the development of the Irish economy. One of the amendments, which came up at a pre-legislative scrutiny hearing that I attended, was a very reasonable ask, one that is literally being done elsewhere. It was for a comprehensive assessment of what lifting the passenger cap at Dublin Airport - increasing the number of flights into and out of Dublin Airport - would mean for the island economy. A steady-state study was done of Schiphol Airport. It would be a logical step to take in advance of lifting the passenger cap. Our specific amendment was that such a comprehensive assessment would look at the wider implications. If the passenger cap is lifted but matters carry on regardless, there is potentially unsustainable development, impacts on the economy and the environment, and a compounding of regional imbalances. A number of others have mentioned that. That is something that I think the Minister needs to take away and consider again. Regardless of his position on the passenger cap and the need to lift it, there is a very strong case, as a matter of good practice, for carrying out a study such as that. The consultancy company that carried out the work relating to Schiphol Airport was CE Delft. The Minister needs to reconsider the idea. We have proposed an independent assessment of the flight paths at Dublin Airport. The Minister will have heard, and I certainly have heard as a constituency TD in Meath East, that from the minute the north runway opened, there was an unmitigated disaster and a level of incompetence that I just find incredible, where houses were noise-insulated on the basis that planes would be flying over their homes, only to realise that the houses that were insulated were not on a flight path while the houses that were not insulated were on a flight path. That incredible, farcical, ridiculous situation continues. There are really good people who are committed to the aviation sector who want to see Dublin Airport grow sustainably, who are employed in the aviation sector, and who have literally out how the situation can be improved. We have submitted amendments to call for an independent assessment of the flight paths. Regardless of whether the Minister accepts that amendment, that needs to happen. There is a wafer-thin commitment from the DAA that that will happen. It needs to happen. The DAA gave that commitment at the last transport committee and again during pre-legislative scrutiny. I call on the Minister to reflect on the amendments that have been submitted here and to understand exactly where they are coming from. They seek to strengthen this legislation. I strongly believe that there is significant room for improvement on this Bill.

Sentiment score: 0.16