Vol. 524 No. 4
9 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if she has discussed with the Department of Defence the possibility of the use of Baldonnel military aerodrome, County Dublin, for civilian aviation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [22495/00]
32 Mr. Currie asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if her attention has been drawn to the widespread concern among local people in the vicinity of Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, County Dublin, particularly on safety and environmental grounds, at the possibility of civil aviation activities there; her views on the future development of Baldonnel; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [22532/00]
38 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the impediments that are preventing Baldonnel aerodrome, County Dublin, from being used as a commercial aerodrome; if there is any possibility of these obstacles being overcome; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [22703/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 32 and 38 together.
I recently met a delegation from the Baldonnel area which is concerned that the development of commercial civil aviation operations at Baldonnel aerodrome could create environmental and safety concerns. I am also aware that other people in the Baldonnel area would favour increased civil aviation activity to promote development and job creation.
From the point of view of civil aviation policy generally, substantial capital investments currently nearing completion at Dublin Airport will provide adequate capacity for the next five years. There is sufficient scope for further expansion at that site which, depending on the rate of future traffic growth, will meet projected requirements. I do not consider, therefore, that there is any requirement for the State to promote or develop a second civil airport for the Dublin region at this time. I do not consider either, however, that the State should stop any private concern from pursuing such a course.
A private investor may develop a facility for civil aviation at any location subject, of course, to planning permission and aviation safety requirements. Ownership of Baldonnel resides with my colleague, the Minister for Defence, and the scope and scale of operations at that aerodrome are matters for him and his Department. In the case of Baldonnel, therefore, if there were a private investor he or she would need to reach agreement with the Minister for Defence regarding terms and conditions for using that military installation for commercial civil aviation purposes.
There would also be a requirement for an amendment to section 3 of the Irish Aviation Authority Act, 1993. An appropriate amendment of section 3 of the IAA Act is included in the Aviation Regulation Bill currently before this House, not for the purpose of facilitating any commercial aviation at Baldonnel but to permit the Irish Aviation Authority to regulate a proposed pilot training school at the Gormanston military aerodrome.
In thanking the Minister for her reply I am not sure if I ought to be pleased that while no State development will take place there will be private development.
I said it could.
Private development may take place and it may be facilitated. At the meeting with Baldonnel liaison group did the Minister take on board the fears expressed about an increase in private flying and the dangers posed in a heavily built up area, which will be even more so with the proposed construction of thousands of houses? Did she take into account the fears expressed about aircraft flying over Tallaght hospital at as low an altitude as 500 feet and noise along the flight path particularly in relation to schools? Fears were expressed that while safety in the air was well catered for safety on the ground was secondary.
The Deputy's time has expired.
The meeting was very helpful and I took on board the legitimate fears expressed. Neither the Government nor I have any plans to open a State airport at Baldonnel. If a private investor wishes to do so, that is a matter for him or her. Such a person would have to get planning permission and so on but that would not have anything to do with me or my Department.
I am sure the Minister will agree that section 46 is the thin end of the wedge—
Exactly.
—as far as the privatisation of Baldonnel airport is concerned. Does the Minister agree that it was extraordinary that she gave time in her ministerial speaking slot to her nephew, Deputy Conor Lenihan, a local Deputy, to boast to this House about the development of a private airport at Baldonnel, not at Gormanston? Does she agree that this is the thin end of the wedge, that without section 46 it is not possible to proceed with that and the likelihood is there will be a freight airport at Baldonnel causing real difficulties between Killiney and Straffan, in a three mile wide belt with 400 night flights by dirty, large, noisy airplanes? That is the likely scenario. What is Government policy on the provision of such airports? The planning authorities must have regard to Government policy when making decisions on private development.
The Government does not intend to move on the further provision of a State airport.
Or a private one.
Let me be quite clear, it does not intend to move. A private one would be at the behest of an investor who wishes to put forward his or her point of view. I do not own Baldonnel; it is the Minister for the Defence.
Would the Minister encourage private involvement?
In what?
A new airport.
Not particularly. If it comes forward it would be subject to planning permission.
The Minister does not have a policy.
I have a policy about not having any further State airports. Dublin, Cork and Shannon are the recognised national airports. As regards my nephew, Deputy Conor Lenihan, he is entitled to say what he wants in this House like any other Member.
He is lucky he gets ministerial time.
He asked me for ten minutes and I gave it to him. It would be extraordinary if I could not give ten minutes of my time to anyone who asked me. He has very pronounced views to which he is entitled.
He was probably briefed by the Minister.
This is the place in which to state those views. It is nonsensical to raise this issue. I heard Deputy Rabbitte speaking about it. Long may Deputy Conor Lenihan have the independence of mind and spirit that he has now.
I welcome what the Minister said about there not being a need for a second airport in this location for the time being. However, the problem is we are putting through legislation which will facilitate the future use of Baldonnel for civil aviation. Does the Minister agree that if Baldonnel were a greenfield site being considered for an airport, whether private or public, it would be subject to the most rigorous analysis, with environmental impact assessments, sworn inquiries and expert evidence. It would be folly to introduce legislation which would facilitate its use for additional aircraft take-offs and landings, whether public or private, prior to the necessary investigation and rigorous analysis taking place. This is a very densely populated area and I am very reluctant to vote away control. I ask the Minister to really consider this in the legislation.
I reflected that view to the association which contacted me. I told it that prior to Committee Stage, which I hope will be next week, I would reflect on section 46 in case there was an implicit, rather than stated, ease ment in it, whereby, while there would always be a need for planning permission, larger scale aviation could be developed without many of the rigorous matters to which Deputy Mitchell referred, such as environmental impact studies. I am reflecting on that, so that and any applicant will have to undergo the full rigours, as is proper, in terms of planning permission and the other attendant matters now required for any application. I am certainly reflecting on section 46 to see whether an amendment tabled by me or another Member or a deletion would be the appropriate way to deal with it.
When the Minister reflects on the matters in section 46 raised by Deputy Olivia Mitchell, will she also reflect on the fact she told us a few moments ago that section 46 was designed to cover Gormanston? Will she bear in mind what her colleague, the Minister for Defence, told the Dáil on 15 May, when he said that before a final decision could be taken on the potential for joint military and civilian use of Baldonnel, the Irish Aviation Act, 1993, would have to be amended? That appears to be in conflict with what the Minister said today. When the Minister is further reflecting on section 46, perhaps she would reflect on the possibility of making it clear in the legislation that it does not refer to Baldonnel but merely to Gormanston. This would considerably ease the fears of the people in the area concerned and would give some credibility to the statement the Minister has made.
I told the deputation something which I am glad to repeat here, that I would reflect on section 46 and take soundings on it. I am going to look at it very seriously. I have just given the same answer that the Deputy received in May. I said "There would also be a requirement for an amendment to section 3 of the Irish Aviation Authority Act, 1993", which is what I think the Minister, Deputy Smith, told the Deputy.
The Minister for Defence said in the House that before the final decision could be taken on the potential for joint military and civilian use of Baldonnel, the Irish Aviation Act, 1993, would have to be amended. I assume section 46 represents that amendment. If that is the case, will the Minister clear up this apparent contradiction between what she and the Minister for Defence have said?
In answer to Deputy Mitchell's question, I have just said "There would also be a requirement for an amendment to section 3 of the Irish Aviation Authority Act, 1993", which is what the Minister, Deputy Smith, told Deputy Currie in May. I then went on to say:
An appropriate amendment of Section 3 of the IAA Act is included in the Aviation Regulation Bill . . . not specifically for the purpose of facilitating any commercial aviation at Baldonnel but rather to permit the Irish Aviation Authority to regulate a proposed pilot training school at the Gormanston military aerodrome.
I call Deputy Stagg.
Will the Minister make clear in her thinking on section 46 that that refers to Gormanston and not Baldonnel? The Minister is nodding her head in agreement but will she put it on the record of the House that that means "yes"?
Yes.
I have called Deputy Stagg.
I have told the group I will on reflect on that.
Will the Minister agree this is a simple matter and that she is deliberately piling confusion upon confusion, for the sake of confusing the House, but that her intentions are clear? Is it her intention to amend the aviation Act, by section 46 of the proposed Act, to allow the use of military airports by civilian authorities? She has now introduced the red herring of Gormanston. Will she agree to ring fence this amendment so that it applies only to Gormanston? My colleagues have been trying to drag that decision out of her. Could she now make that clear?
Will the Minister also agree that the Minister for Defence is on record, and has had a practice, of selling everything he gets his hands on, including the barracks in Naas? When he could not sell it to anybody else, he sold it to his colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. He will sell Baldonnel if the Minister gives him this licence to have a freight airport there and she knows that.
Deputy Stagg congratulated the Minister last week on what he did with the lands at Naas barracks.
My tongue was out through my cheek.
The Deputy stood up in the House and said that. I am reflecting on section 46. The question remains whether this should be done by way of deletion of section 46 or confirmation that it refers only to the potential introduction of a pilot training ground at Gormanston.
So we can take it the Minister has caved in and is no longer pursuing the Baldonnel issue. I congratulate the group at Baldonnel who fought this.
We must move to Question No. 10. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe is in the House waiting for his question to be taken.
I do not know what the Deputy is talking about.
