Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order as it is in conflict with the principle of the Bill.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 2, 20 and 22 are related may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Joe Conway (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “Report on regional development

4. (1) The Minister shall within 12 months of the passing of this Act lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on how smaller regional airports can be effectively utilised in order to support regional development.

(2) The report should take into account how smaller regional airports can be utilised to support lower fares, increase local employment and reduce the need to rely on larger airports.”.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to speak on this. Cuirim fáilte mhór arís roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach seo. The substance of this amendment was adverted to a week ago, on 1 July, when we mentioned that the airport traffic numbers are levitated in a type of balance. When a preponderance of numbers is going through Dublin Airport and 60% of the economic activity of the country is centred within a 60 km radius of O'Connell Bridge, we are looking at a situation where there is a great discrepancy between the viability, prosperity and potential of regional airports and the airport in Dublin. As the Minister well knows, the programme for Government puts front and centre the concept of balanced regional development. To my way of thinking and that of any logical person looking at it, the untrammelled expansion of Dublin Airport flies in the face of balanced regional development vis-á-vis airports.

There is no doubt that a lot of people will want to fly in to Dublin Airport, but as I said last week, we had some years ago the closure of the rail line between Waterford and Rosslare. It caused uproar and was rationalised by Iarnród Éireann at the time. It said it was a railway that was not being used. Of course, that only told half the story. It was not being used because they ran trains at the most bizarre times of early morning and late at night. You orchestrate the result you want to get. There is an element of that in promoting, untrammelled, the airport in Dublin. That is making it more difficult for regional development and for regional airports in particular to grow themselves and attract numbers to boost tourism and generate economic development. It is for that reason that Senator McCarthy and I wanted to put down this amendment. It is a theme happily gravitated towards by Members last Wednesday evening. We are pushing at an open door. Everybody in this Chamber and in these Houses would champion the cause of balanced regional development. We know it is the thing to do. It is good for the environment. It is good for local economies. It is good for the social life of the country. It is good for our morale. It is good for Ireland. When we bow down and worship at the altar of one not very euphoniously mouthed airline magnate who is demanding these things happen at Dublin Airport, that is making a terrible sacrifice and martyrdom of the potential that exists in rural and suburban Ireland. I wanted to put down those markers and I hope my colleague will have something further to say on the matter.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for being here and I thank Senator Conway for his words even though I did not understand some of them. I am moving this amendment with Senator Conway because I know this Bill is important, but it also risks becoming just a Dublin story when it should be a national one. I know we are debating the passenger cap at Dublin Airport and how many people can move through one gateway in Ireland, which is in Dublin. It is a legitimate and pressing question, but every hour we stand debating capacity at one airport is time we are not asking a basic question: why does so much of Ireland's connectivity have to run through a single gate at all? Even though I live near Dublin Airport and use it all of the time, I think this amendment is asking for something reasonable. It is a report on how we can best use our regional airports and how they can be put to proper use that will support regional development, which is in the programme for Government, and also take pressure off Dublin Airport.

The Minister knows we have wonderful infrastructure at Kerry, Cork, Shannon, Knock and Donegal airports. Those runways are sitting there today.They are often underused, as we know. At the same time, however, Dublin is straining at the seams and rural Ireland is missing out. The programme for Government advocates for balanced regional development, but what I have outlined is not balance when it comes to regional development.

The report we are asking for is not just a box-ticking exercise. Amendment No. 2 is specific and deliberate. We want the Minister to examine three things. The first one is fares. A family in Kerry, Mayo or Donegal should not have to drive three hours to Dublin in order to fly out of the country. The second is local employment. Every route based out of a regional airport supports jobs, tourism, logistics, hospitality and aviation. These are jobs that are needed most in places that are farthest from Dublin. The third aspect is to reduce our overreliance on the larger airports. A country that funnels all its air traffic through one hub is a country susceptible to one bad afternoon as a result of power being lost, which happened at Heathrow Airport recently. That would put us in a dreadful situation.

I stress that this amendment is modest. It is constructive. We are not legislating for any outcomes here. We are asking for the Minister to look, to gather evidence and to bring that evidence back to this House within a year so that we can then, when we next legislate on aviation capacity, we can do so as a whole country, rather than in respect of one airport in isolation. I have heard it said that regional airports are a legacy issue and that the future of Irish aviation is consolidation around Dublin. I do not accept that. A small island country cannot put all its eggs in one basket when it comes to airports. These other airports should not be an afterthought. The amendment would cost the Exchequer absolutely nothing. It would delay nothing. It asks only that we think properly and on the record about the other airports in the State before the next round of aviation policy is set in stone.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I call Senator Scahill, I welcome Ms Adrienne McDonnell and Mr. Noel Hughes who are here as guests of Senator Harmon.

Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to speak on the amendment relating to a report on regional development. Supporting this Bill should not in any way be interpreted as going against balanced regional development or supporting our regional airports. Like a lot of rural representatives in this House, I have regularly spoken about Shannon, Cork, Knock, Donegal and Kerry airports and how important their role is in bringing people, business and industry to our country. They support tourism, indigenous enterprise, inward investment and employment throughout the country. They should continue to get strong Government support in that regard.

Rather than creating another section within this Bill, I would look at a refreshed national aviation strategy which would ensure that regional connectivity remains a priority. I could not associate myself with any Bill if I thought it referred to or if there was any insinuation of consolidation around one airport. That is not what we are trying to do here. Strengthening our regional airports should not come at the expense of Dublin Airport. That is the long and the short of it. They are not competing factors. Ireland needs a strong national hub to thrive and to assist our regional airports. This Bill is ambitious. The Minister is ambitious for it. We should allow it and our airports to flourish with it.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will speak to amendments Nos. 20 and 22, which are grouped with amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 20

requires the publication of the national aviation policy that supports regional balance, strengthens regional airports and adopts the all-island approach. I understand what Senator Scahill said to the effect that it is not one above the other. I get that, but would it not be great, on the back of this, when we are talking about Dublin Airport, to have a report to show what we are doing for regional airports? I am all for regional airports. I live in County Limerick. I am right in the centre between Shannon Airport and Kerry Airport. Would it not be great if I could use Shannon or Kerry airports to fly wherever I need?

I have to travel to Strasbourg four times a year for the Council of Europe. I have to drive three hours to Dublin because the flights from Shannon to Strasbourg only go on Saturdays. If I do not want to spend a whole week over there for the sake of four days, I have to go from Dublin. It took me 13 hours to get to Strasbourg the first time I went, between my trip from my house near the border with Kerry up to Dublin. Would it not be amazing if we had more flights? I know it comes down to the airlines. I would love to see airlines being incentivised to use our regional airports, whether it is for tourism or for the growth and development of our industries. We have a fantastic area in Shannon where there is a lot of foreign direct investment. It is about publishing a policy that will strengthen that, which we all seem to be calling for across the two Houses.

Amendment No. 22 asks a simple question about what effect lifting the ban will have on the regional airports. They kind of mirror each other. One would be to have policy drafted and the other is to see the effects. I have said from the very start of the debate on this Bill that we live on an island. It does not make sense to cap the number of people who come in and out. We have to have movement. It is about one not having the benefit so much more. As well as that, residents are giving out about the number of flights. If our regional airports were to grow a little more, Dublin would either stay the same or drop a bit. Everything would be shared out across the whole country, which would be great.

Lorraine Clifford-Lee (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak to these amendments. I come at them from the point of view of somebody who lives very close to Dublin Airport. I support Dublin Airport, the jobs it creates and its input into the economy. I also support the communities around the airport.

It is important to point out that what is proposed here does not take away from the development of our regional airports. I am familiar with our regional airports and the necessity of them. It is also worth pointing out that the passenger numbers going through our regional airports have actually increased. This is something that the Government supports. We have a growing population. Therefore, we need greater connectivity. It is good to see that. It is reflective of a strong economy, but the strong economy dictates that we need to have a strong national airport serving the needs of our economy. That is what Dublin Airport does. The carriers dictate the routes. It is not for the Government, the Minister or any individual to dictate how a particular route is formed.

I can understand the frustrations of some people who have to travel for a number of hours before they can reach the airport and travel on to their onward destination. That is something that needs to be addressed, but I do not know whether it is for the Government to address. The Government supports regional airports.

I disagree with Senator Collins on this matter. I do not think raising the cap on passengers at Dublin Airport will give rise to a reduction in the number of people going through the regional airports. I do not think limiting the number of people going through Dublin Airport will shift that out to the regional airports. There are two different offerings. We should focus our efforts on trying to improve the situation around Dublin Airport for the residents near Dublin Airport and look to the wider the economy and the benefit of Dublin Airport to the economy and the needs of the local community. We should not get distracted about a completely separate issue, which is the regional airports.

Laura Harmon (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also want to speak to this amendment. I support the calls for a report in relation to how this will affect balanced regional development. I live close to Cork Airport. I want to talk about the development of that airport, as well as two other airports in the Munster area, namely Shannon and Kerry. I welcome Adrienne McDonnell and Noel Hughes, who are in the Gallery. They are concerned residents who live near Dublin Airport. I have an amendment later on, which I will speak to. Generally, we in the Labour Party are opposed to this Bill. We opposed it in the Dáil. We believe it is an anti-climate Bill. The Government is making it clear that climate, environment and biodiversity considerations can be disregarded at will if they pose a challenge to their whims.This is the third Bill produced this term that seeks to disapply the climate Act. We have seen it with the infrastructure Bill, we are seeing it with this Bill and we saw it again this week with the liquefied natural gas reserve Bill. This Bill does not just raise to some higher figure the current cap of 32 million passengers that Dublin Airport has consistently broken in recent years, but it also allows the Minister to scrap the cap altogether. No alternative ceiling is proposed. The Minister has floated a figure of 60 million passengers a year, almost doubling the current limit. The Labour Party has serious concerns over the Bill, so we are we are opposed to the Bill as a whole.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis na Seanadóirí agus cuirim fíorfháilte roimh na daoine sa Ghailearaí freisin. I thank Senators for the amendments tabled. I will explain why I will not be accepting any of them. Senator Harmon gave a contribution on the overall Bill and the impact on residents. I will deal with that during this session as I did in the Dáil. This Bill does not disapply any environmental considerations whatsoever. I know there is another amendment proposing that it goes through An Coimisiún Pleanála. I will explain that later as amendments are taken.

I will first deal with regional airports. Senators Clifford-Lee, Scahill and others have put forward what is the correct position in that regard. All of our regional airports are growing. Cork Airport carried 3.24 million passengers. A €200 million investment is under way in Cork Airport right now. I have visited Cork Airport, which is a wonderful airport. Shannon Airport grew by 9% last year. The half-year figures that I have for Shannon up to the end of June show a 12% increase. Shannon Airport had 1.17 million passengers in the first half of this year. It is another very fine airport and very important to us. It actually had its busiest day in 17 years on 28 June when 11,400 passengers passed through it. I was in Kerry Airport yesterday and on Sunday. Kerry Airport is projecting over 500,000 passengers this year. Ireland West Airport is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. That airport will be touching 1 million passengers. We are investing in and supporting these airports through the regional airports programme. I would be quite happy at another time to go through that in more detail.

We just brought forward the regional airports programme for 2026 to 2030, providing for €45 million worth of investment in our regional airports. I have changed the criteria within that to increase the passenger numbers to 3 million. This will allow Shannon, for argument's sake, to participate in the regional airports programme, all of whose participants are receiving funding. This year, Shannon got €1.9 million, Ireland West Airport got €2.8 million and Kerry Airport got €2.8 million. We should not forget Donegal, which is a very important airport for connectivity for the north west. It carries a smaller number of passengers but still receives about €400,000. With the new public service obligation, PSO, flight there, we have made sure to maintain the schedule that was in place and so important to residents in Donegal.

To talk from an all-island perspective, we have other airports on the island. A Dublin-Derry route will start in October of this year through the Government's shared island initiative, reconnecting a route that has not been in operation since 2011.

I assure Senators that it is not a case of Dublin growing instead of the others. The reality is that we have a growing population. Everybody recognises that we are an island nation; that is stating the obvious fact. Connectivity is critical, and the aviation sector is also critical for jobs. I grew up beside the airport and have lived beside it my whole life. Tens of thousands of people have jobs at the airport and derive good incomes to support their families through the airport. There are about 130,000 direct and indirect jobs through Dublin Airport, with about 3% of GDP generated from that campus alone. It is a critical piece of national infrastructure.

I have been very clear on this in the Dáil as well. There have been issues with how the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, has operated with regard to its neighbours, including near neighbours to the west of the campus in the St. Margaret's and the Ward area as well as on the eastern side in Portmarnock and Malahide. Over the years, the DAA has not dealt with them well. The aircraft noise competent authority, ANCA's decision on noise has been out for 14 weeks. That is an important decision out for public consultation. I have written to the airport and have engaged with it. The airport has a new chairperson and soon will have a new chief executive also. I have said very clearly that the voluntary purchase scheme needs to be improved for those who cannot sustain their households and lives in close proximity to the airport. The noise insulation scheme needs to expand. That will happen post the 14 weeks of the public consultation on the noise decision. We have also protected the planning application that is with Fingal County Council right now. It is known as the infrastructure application and actually seeks to increase the passenger numbers to 40 million. Importantly, it also seeks to improve the facilities on the campus at Dublin Airport. We are not reaching into that at all. That is being fully protected, as is clearly stated in the Bill.

Regarding the amendment, I have already mentioned where the regional airports are and they are all growing, which is very good to see. Cork and Ireland West airports grew by 13% last year and they can grow more. There are now over 40 routes flying out of Shannon for the first time since the early 1990s. Those regional airports need to be hungry for business because, as Senator Clifford-Lee right said, I cannot, even if I wished to, direct an airline to fly out of a particular airport. The commercial decisions that airlines make are way beyond any powers that any Minister has.

I am absolutely in earnest when I say that the operation of Dublin Airport and the manner in which the DAA deals with local residents have to improve, and I will make sure that they do. The people directly affected need to be listened to and solutions need to be found. There is an economic and strategic imperative for us to continue allowing airports to grow in a sustainable way. I am not being overly critical because the Members have put forward their own points of view and I respect them.

The Labour Party position as put forward in the Dáil is effectively to bring the numbers back down to 32 million. The internationally recognised rule of thumb on jobs to passenger numbers is that every 1 million passengers leads to about 1,000 direct jobs. If we were to go back to 32 million, I think Senators in opposition and, indeed, in government would be calling me in and asking why we had lost 5,000 direct jobs in Dublin Airport. That is what would happen. An Investec report published in, I believe, 2022 said that to maintain the cap at 32 million between now and 2030 would jeopardise up to about 19,000 jobs. That is the reality of it.

I support the workers in the airport. I am from the community myself. The airport has to grow in a sustainable way. It has to operate as a good neighbour but I recognise that it has not always done so. I have said in the Dáil and am quite happy to put on the record of the House here that, post the passing of this Bill and when a number of legal cases ongoing at the moment are dispensed with, I will be initiating an independent assessment of flight paths. A number of residents have been affected where flight paths for which planning was approved have not been adhered to, with the authority then seeking approval for retention. That is not the way to operate.

I support jobs within the airport. Connectivity for our country is critical. This Bill is specifically about Dublin Airport. As Senators Scahill and Clifford-Lee have rightly said, this is not instead of regional airport growth. The facts speak for themselves with regard to the regional airport growth numbers. I was only in Kerry yesterday. There are further really impressive expansion plans for Kerry Airport. Ireland West, Cork and Shannon airports are all growing. Work is also under way in Waterford Airport, which is good to see. Donegal Airport is operating a very important service for people in the region.With that said, a Chathaoirligh, I am not in a position to accept any of the amendments but specifically amendment No. 2.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the amendment being pressed?

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 8, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “(4) The Minister shall, not later than 12 months following commencement, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report reviewing daa’s compliance with the directions of the Minister.”.

Amendment No. 3 is basically a review of compliance being held up by the DAA. It is really just monitoring again. The amendment introduces a simple measure of accountability. Where the Minister is given powers to direct the DAA, it is entirely reasonable that the Oireachtas should receive a report within 12 months outlining whether those directions are actually being complied with. Greater powers must come with greater oversight. This amendment strengthens the transparency and ensures Parliament can monitor whether the legislation is working as intended. It is basically just accountability as to whether what is being told to the DAA is actually being upheld.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Senator has explained, the amendment proposes to lay a report before the Houses in relation to DAA's compliance with any directions I give it under the Bill. This provision is unnecessary. DAA is required by law once this Bill passes to comply with any direction I issue under the Bill. Typically, this will relate to the provision of reports to allow the environmental assessments to be undertaken, which I spoke of earlier. If that is not provided then the assessments cannot be undertaken and no order can be made. As such, it is in the DAA's interest to comply with any direction I issue and it will comply with that. I will also say that DAA is obviously bound to publish a report every year. That annual report is brought to Cabinet. The Minister of the day is the shareholder of the Dublin Airport Authority. The chairperson and board members are appointed by the Minister. This legislation, if anything, gives a very clear report and delineation with regard to any orders I would issue to it, be that about numbers, environmental considerations or whatever that may be and it must comply. I am not, therefore, in a position to accept this amendment.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Senator pressing this amendment?

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “Community engagement obligations

7. (1) The Minister direct the daa to establish a formal mechanism for ongoing and meaningful engagement with local communities affected by airport operations, including those impacted by the north runway.

(2) The Minister shall open a public consultation concerning daa’s engagement with local communities and lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas no later than 12 months following commencement of this Act.”.

This amendment is more or less around community engagement. I know there are plenty of groups that have been set up around Dublin Airport. We have met many of them throughout our time on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport. However, we have been told and many have said that they sometimes feel ignored when decisions are made affecting Dublin Airport. This amendment, therefore, requires the DAA to establish meaningful and ongoing engagement and maybe more than what is already happening. If people are still feeling like they are being ignored, I do not see the harm in having something in place to ensure they are informed at stages when this moves or when more changes have to come into effect, particularly residents impacted by the north runway. It also requires the Minister to consult publicly and report back to the Oireachtas. Good engagement should not be an afterthought. It should be the core of how major national infrastructure operates, and it does. Public engagement does stop those delays when communities put in objections. I find that if we keep people on board and engage and make sure they are listened to and that their points are taken on board, it can save an awful lot of heartache in the end.

Lorraine Clifford-Lee (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Minister knows, I have been engaging with communities for a long time in relation to the issues they are experiencing around Dublin Airport, whether that is the voluntary dwelling purchase scheme, the insulation scheme or the issues the residents in St. Margaret's The Ward have in relation to the development of their community and the lack of investment into the community. As the Minister knows, the northern runway has been presenting huge problems since it opened in August 2022. The residents are feeling ignored and neglected in relation to this. The northern runway suddenly saw flights flying over parts of north county Dublin that were never supposed to be under the path. In particular, the children of Kilcoskan National School, who have gone through an awful time being suddenly under the flight path, really need to be thought about at this time. I would like to see greater engagement with the residents. I know, and the Minister alluded to it, that a new chair of the DAA has been appointed and we are awaiting the appointment of a new CEO. I would hope that a serious turnabout in relation to the level of engagement will occur.

The Minister has a general power under the Bill we currently have to direct the DAA for any purpose. Therefore, while I agree with the sentiments of the proposed amendment, it is probably unnecessary, given that the Minister has that power under the Bill currently. I would like to see him use it, however, and direct the DAA to have proper, decent engagement. It is something on which I have engaged with the Minister. I thank him for that engagement and I will continue to engage with him on it, but it is really important that we think about the residents. Yes, we support Dublin Airport and we support the economic impact Dublin Airport gives not only Dublin but the whole country, but we cannot forget about the residents. I will have the opportunity to speak on the voluntary buy-out scheme later as we are discussing other amendments. I just want to emphasise that this power is already in the Bill and I would like to see the Minister use it.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I think such a community engagement obligation would be appropriate. It is not ideal to have it at the discretion of the Minister. The prioritisations in terms of the economic case have been set out by the Minister, so I would not have as full confidence of these issues being addressed. It is regrettable that a number of amendments in relation to flight paths, particularly around assessment of noise, were not deemed eligible. Those are key issues and the kinds of key issues that could and should be identified through something like a community engagement piece, as well as those members of the community who have environmental concerns, which is something I will come to in subsequent amendments. Again, these are very serious concerns that will be likely to intensify significantly if plans move ahead as planned.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator for tabling the amendment. I would say to Senator Clifford-Lee that this is in section 6 of the Bill very clearly. The Bill was written in close collaboration and with the advice of the Attorney General as well. The general power is actually very important. Section 6(1) states: "The Minister may give a direction in writing to daa for any purpose relating to this Act, including, but not limited to ..." and then it actually lists them. Anyone can read that it is abundantly clear.

I have already spoken in relation to noise. Noise is an issue for some residents. I have also spoken on flight paths and in relation to the voluntary purchase scheme. I have already engaged with the DAA on that. We will have a new management team in the DAA shortly and I will be engaging again at that stage too. I say that as someone who has lived beside the airport my whole life. I would also say it is important that in fairness, many of the residents who have issues are not against the airport. There are many people in north Dublin, where I live, who actually want the airport cap removed and who derive incomes from the airport and want it to grow. There are others who are directly impacted and who have very valid issues that have not been dealt with heretofore in as efficient a way as possible. Many people feel particularly affected by the opening of the new runway, as I mentioned, in St. Margaret's The Ward area, Portmarnock, parts of Malahide, in particular, and parts of Kinsealy. However, there are many others who are under flight paths who want to see the airport continue to grow also. This is about having a balanced approach but the power within the Act, once this is passed, is very clearly set down. This is about trying to move this forward in a sustainable way to allow the airport to grow in a sustainable way and allow it to underpin and support the jobs that are there and make sure we have the international connectivity we need and require as an island nation.This legislation has been thought through very carefully. We have not in any way, shape or form rushed it either. There were ten weeks of pre-legislative scrutiny. I responded to the pre-legislative scrutiny report. That is important. This Bill passing would strengthen our hand with regard to how the airport operates for the small number of residents who are affected. I am acutely aware of that myself and I expect the power that is given to me within the Bill to be used. I am not accepting the amendments as tabled.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister suggested that there would not be dilution of the environmental regulation, but there is. Section 18 is explicitly about the disapplication of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011. It states:

A proposal or an order made under section 25(1) [that is a proposal or order made to adjust or increase the amount of the cap and change the numbers that are massing through the airport] shall not constitute an activity or a project within the meaning of Regulation 2 of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations.

The name of the section is literally "Disapplication of regulations". We have kind of wooly substitutions for that. Section 17 states that the Commission shall, in performing its functions, "take appropriate steps ... insofar as such disturbance could be significant having regard to the objectives of the Habitats Directive". There is a bit of having regard to the Commission. Under section 19, the Minister may apply for an appropriate assessment or ask for a Natura impact statement to be done. At a fundamental level, the disapplication of the regulations – the EU rules which would apply, separate from whatever wooly measures the phrase "have regard to" covers in sections 17 and 19 - could not be seen as anything less than a dilution. This is part of another significant environmentally impactful component which we are going to come to later. Of course, the Bill is being guillotined. As a result, we may not get the opportunity to come to it later. It is positioned in the very final section of the Bill, namely section 39, and is a modification of the application of section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. Again, the idea is that the Minister and the Commission, when performing their functions, will not be subject to the requirements of section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act and having regard to the likely consequences for the economy of the State and for international connectivity.

Basically, the Minister is trying to modify and disapply the obligations that obtain under the climate Act. He literally has a section on the disapplication of regulations under the birds and habitats directives. We are setting up for a situation of environmental non-accountability. That can be the environment in which the community is being spoken about or operating in, and they are not just working but living in, which many of them care about as well. It also has an impact on our environment. Depending on when the guillotine falls, I hope we will have an opportunity to come back to this, but disapplying the checks and balances and the tools we have has an extraordinarily negative consequence. This part of Dublin is also a big horticultural area. Where is the consideration of the habitats directive and the birds directive? They must be factored in too.

We also look to the fact of aviation emissions being a massive factor in the kind of climate breakdown that we are seeing globally. They are not adequately captured. It is already a bit of weird black box whereby in the context of our national emissions, we are only capturing internal flights. On the European trading scheme, we are capturing flights within Europe and there is no capturing, except for the IPCC when it produces its now annual reports telling us that we are heading off a cliff. It is the only one capturing the global piece because there is not a global mechanism of accountability. That was meant to be coming in 2027, but, of course, countries like America have left the Paris Agreement. There are all these places that the flights will be going to, where we do not know how the emissions are being measured or what the impacts will be, but what we do know is that by disapplying section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act, we are trying to make sure that the Minister and the Commission do not have to think about the Paris Agreement or the ultimate objective, which is to keep our planet livable. It was 1.5°C; it will now be 2°C if we are lucky.

There is a significant environmental dilution here. With respect, if we are in a period when we should be looking to have a just transition, it is not simply a matter of saying I can tag a number and say there are jobs in this. There are lots of jobs in it. We need jobs in the areas that are going to be sustainable, properly environmentally monitored that will deliver for us so that we can ensure people can both work and live on a safe and fair planet. That is the piece that needs investment rather than throwing in the numbers of the persons who may get the downstream jobs when we know the major beneficiaries of this are a handful of small business owners who have had a very successful lobbying campaign. They are the major beneficiaries in respect of this. The cost, including the cost in terms of the fines, if we look at the money side of it, that will be paid, are the costs that will be paid by the public for Ireland failing to meet its targets. Those are the straight financial costs. Whether or not the Minister disapplies the climate Act we still have to hit the same targets and that will have to come from somewhere else. Some other sector will have to step up or else we will have to pay fines, or more significantly the costs that are paid globally for a kind of reckless acceleration in emissions at a time when we should be shifting our approach.

Joe Conway (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to take up the theme that was adverted to by Senator Higgins. I am looking at a prediction from the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council to the effect that between now and 2030, we are going to have to open the envelope and look at a bill for anything between €3 billion and €6 billion. Irish taxpayers will be faced with paying this money because the country is going to remain off track on its emissions up to 2030. I do not know where we are going to get that money and keep health services, education services and all of the other services on track. It is a horrendous spectre to have before us.I am just wondering. While I did not hear it myself, I am told there was an interview this morning with Dr. Eimear Cotter, the head of the EPA. Dr. Cotter was rather glum about the projected passenger numbers of 40 million and possibly 60 million at Dublin Airport and the collateral damage to what are euphemistically called the "receptors" out there. It is a case of being allowed to mark your own homework. The EPA is not allowed to monitor the particulate matter or emissions at Dublin Airport. It is apparently the DAA that does this. It is a classic case of correcting your own homework. There should be checks and balances in these things. I am not a hanging-from-the-clothesline environmentalist. I try to see a sensible middle line. However, allowing the offender to measure the emissions and particulate matter at Dublin Airport rather than employing the EPA to do an independent assessment just seems bizarre.

While I am on my feet, I will refer to the argument the Minister made in relation to the regional airports and the encouraging rate of growth in their passenger numbers. That is delightful to hear and we all know it but it is a slightly disingenuous argument. How would the numbers have grown without the preponderance of investment and development at Dublin Airport? On the 5,000 jobs that would be lost, what about the jobs that would be gained in rural Ireland if the regional airports were allowed to develop? We should not say that Dublin Airport is the only thing that can generate economic activity. That cannot be the case. There is a lot of skewed thinking on this. There are many upset people out there, with whom I am minded to agree in many instances, who are under the impression that this is not good legislation. When we had the debate last week, on 1 July, I listed for the Minister of State who was here at the time a series of critical questions that needed to be answered. I got a reply from the Minister's office today saying that none of these assessments were done.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Senator say that again? I missed it.

Joe Conway (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When we had the debate last week, I listed a number of critical safety, resilience and security questions for the Minister of State who was here, Deputy Buttimer. I followed this up with an email to the Minister's office yesterday. Latterly, I got back a very comprehensive reply from the Minister's private secretary. Perhaps I should not have mentioned that. Be that as it may, the answer to the questions I asked was generally that none of the investigations I specified, which related to security, safety and resilience, had been carried out. Here in the Seanad, we often pride ourselves on being an informed Legislature and a revising Chamber. When we ask critical questions about safety, security and resilience at the airport, such an answer comes as a great disappointment to us. Senator McCarthy talked about what happened at London recently. It is happening at airports all over the world. The resilience factor and regional airports are very important. There has to be a plan B if the big airport goes down. That is self-evident.

I am happy to indicate those items that are of concern to me. I am not the only one concerned about them. Unlike the Minister, I do not live under the flight path of Dublin Airport. However, I do live under what I hope will be the flight path of Waterford Airport. As a keen aircraft watcher, I am looking forward to that. I will be there with my binoculars day in and day out. However, I will not be dying from ingesting too much particulate matter because regional airports are easier to live beside. I get communications from people who live near the airport and I pity them. They are hostages to the untrammelled development of Dublin Airport.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will start with Senator Alice-Mary Higgins. I suggest she may be reading the Bill incorrectly. I refer her to section 24, which specifically outlines:

The Minister shall not make an order under section 25(1) unless— (a) the Commission has carried out an environmental impact assessment of the proposal and issued a reasoned conclusion in accordance with section 15, and

(b) the Commission has carried out an appropriate assessment of the proposal and—

(i) the Commission has made a determination in accordance with section 21(6)

The only reason it is disapplied in section 18 is that is covered in another part of the Bill, section 24. It is outlined there. I will not read the full section. I will not be able to issue an order unless the assessments are carried out. That is very clearly set out in section 24 of the Bill. The Senator will see it there. It does not need to be in the Bill twice. That is why it is disapplied.

In response to Senator Joe Conway, I am not sure I have much more to say. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to their own facts. The reality is that the regional airports are growing. The numbers I have given the Senator are correct. They are good. I have not made them up. You can grow jobs across the-----

Joe Conway (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I asked what they would be like.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This may be the first time it has been proposed that we would cut 5,000 jobs from Dublin Airport and redeploy them across the regional airports. That is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to grow our airports and our connectivity in a balanced way. I fully respect the Senator's view; I just do not agree with it. The reality is that our regional airports are growing. Between now and 2030, we are investing €45 million to that end.

This Bill is specifically about Dublin Airport. Matters have been raised, particular with regard to engaging with the affected communities. There are many thousands of people who live beside Dublin Airport who want to see the cap removed. They derive their income from the airport and want to see it continue to grow. I have already mentioned the more than 3 million passengers who flew through Cork Airport and the growth of Shannon Airport, which has just had its best half a year and which now has over 40 routes. However, a small number of people are impacted and they need to be listened to. Not only do they need to be listened to, their views need to be acted upon. Senator Clifford-Lee and others have discussed the voluntary purchase scheme with me. We will get to that later on. It needs to be improved.

Under this Bill, the Minister will have the power to make directions in respect of any matter under the Bill. I expect that to happen. We have a new leadership team going into the airport. It is about a good neighbour policy, supporting jobs and connectivity, allowing the airport to grow in a sustainable way, and adherence to the granted flight paths. I am going to carry out an independent assessment of that once the cases are dispensed with and once the aircraft noise competent authority, which comes under Fingal County Council, makes its final decision. I have also protected the existing application that is with Fingal County Council right now. This does not set that aside at all.

We are doing this in a very structured and careful way. As Government colleagues and some Opposition colleagues have said before, no one can argue for a false cap to be put on growth. A condition relating to vehicular access to the airport was introduced in 2007 and 2008. Next year, we are going to start construction on the long-awaited MetroLink. This is the first Government to fund MetroLink. Full planning permission has been granted. Preparatory work has started and the first tender is out. We are also significantly upgrading our rail lines right across the country. The landscape has changed since 2007 and 2008. There are still issues with a small number of residents that need to be dealt with. These issues need to be dealt with by agreement. That is the best way to do it.

I am not speaking to an amendment. I am speaking to section 18 because Senator Higgins wanted to speak on that section. I have nothing further to say. I have explained that the environmental considerations are very clearly covered by section 24 of the Bill. I cannot issue an order without the relevant assessments being done.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know we have other sections and amendments to get to but this seems to be more bespoke than what is included in section 15. Section 24 requires the preparation of an environmental impact assessment. That is clear. However, the question is how that assessment will be considered. I am concerned about the disapplication of regulation 2. In the performance of the functions, it is having regard to the objectives of the habitats directive. There is an environmental impact assessment but in terms of the binding impact of the regulation, I am concerned that it may be diluted through a more bespoke measure. I understand we will have further opportunity to engage on that. I am opposed to section 18.

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 5 has been ruled out of order.

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 6 has been ruled out of order.

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 7 has been ruled out of order.

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 8 and 25 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed?

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 23, after line 34, to insert the following:

"Review of compensation buyout scheme

24. The Minister shall, within 9 months following commencement of this Act, conduct an independent assessment of the daa’s noise mitigation schemes, including insulation and voluntary buyout schemes. The assessment shall evaluate whether: (a) valuation reflects current market prices;

(b) compensation includes disturbance and reinstatement costs;

(c) there is transparency and fairness in eligibility criteria.".

This amendment relates to the compensation and buyout schemes. Residents affected by airport noise must have the confidence that compensation schemes are going to be fair. This amendment requires an independent review of insulation and voluntary buyout schemes to ensure that the valuations reflect current market values, disturbance costs are recognised and eligible criteria are transparent. It is to ensure that we are not looking at historical prices for people's houses, that it is going to be market value and everything is going to be taken into account, including the cost of the disturbance to their livelihoods.

People should not be financially disadvantaged because they happen to live beside the national airport. It is important infrastructure, but people should not be disadvantaged if they are looking for a buyout scheme. We must ensure it keeps within market value.

Laura Harmon (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will speak to amendment No. 25. I acknowledge that the Minister has said that he acknowledges that the voluntary dwelling purchase scheme could be improved and contact with residents is important. How can that be improved? Who is going to be ultimately responsible for that?

Amendment No. 25 would, at line 22 on page 34, insert a new section, entitled, "Equivalent reinstatement standard for voluntary dwelling purchase scheme". This amendment arises from recommendation No. 15 of the pre-legislative scrutiny report on this Bill by the Joint Committee on Transport. It relates to the voluntary dwelling purchase scheme operated by the DAA, which, as Senators will be aware, offers homeowners in specific areas affected by noise the option to sell their properties to Dublin Airport. As it is currently constituted, the scheme does not represent a fair deal for the families affected. In contrast to the picture sometimes painted in the media, these are not people who have moved to the airport area and chosen to complain and grumble vexatiously. They are families in well-established homesteads who built their homes with full planning permission many decades ago and many families have multiple homes in this area. They have built a community over those decades and as the airport has grown and noise and disruption increased, they have engaged honestly and constructively on the issues. They are people who recognise the importance of the airport as a piece of national infrastructure. They fly abroad, like many other people. They just want a fair deal.

If the Oireachtas is being asked to facilitate future airport growth, it is equally important that those families bearing the greatest impact of that growth are treated fairly and afforded a realistic pathway to move on with their lives. For these families, living conditions have become increasingly difficult as the number of flights has grown. The impact on their lives is easy to imagine. It harms their ability to enjoy their own homes.

When participating in the voluntary dwelling purchase scheme, these families are not engaging with the housing market in the ordinary way. They are not simply choosing to place their homes on the market. They are being asked to leave long-established homes, communities, family support networks and caring arrangements because of the impact of national infrastructure. That is why the principle of equivalent reinstatement, which is at the heart of our amendment No. 25, is so important. Affected families must be properly supported to secure equivalent replacement accommodation and should not be left materially worse off in any way as a consequence. It is important that families who are already going through this scheme are fully supported.

Housing in Ireland has changed vastly, as the Minister knows, since the scheme was originally designed. These families face the same crisis of supply that any buyer in this country faces. The voluntary buyout scheme has not been meaningfully updated since 2016 and does not reflect current property values. The reality is that market valuation does not necessarily provide a pathway to replacement and reinstatement. This amendment aims to rectify that by ensuring the equivalent replacement principle is embedded in the scheme.

We in the Labour Party are opposed to this Bill, as I have said. We believe that it is a total derogation of duty when it comes to our climate commitments. The Bill does apply to a lot of people who live in Dublin, but I believe this is a national issue. People across the country care about this. They care about our climate. This is only the latest in a string of similarly reckless Bills from the Government. If it must pass, I hope that the Government can at least accept this amendment so that some of the families who will be most affected by further expansion at the airport at least have some real protection and support.

I want to just come back on what the Minister said earlier about jobs to make the point that there will be no jobs on a dead planet. Overall, fault lies with the DAA. The Government is sidestepping an independent planning process. I urge the Minister to support our amendment.

Lorraine Clifford-Lee (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to speak to this amendment because it concerns an important issue that I have raised directly with the Minister. I have also raised it in this House and at the transport committee. The Minister said that a small number of residents have valid issues with living next to Dublin Airport. They deserve to be listened to and catered for.

The people living around St. Margaret's have been living there for generations. Many of them are living in family clusters and we all know the importance in Irish society of intergenerational living and family clusters. I am thinking particularly of the McDonnell family in St. Margaret's. Adrienne McDonnell and her husband, Noel, are in the Gallery. I have been engaging with Adrienne and many of her neighbours on this issue for a number of years. They are decent, honest, hard-working people who just want their situation resolved. They have been living in limbo for many years. They have real concerns. They have engaged in good faith with the DAA. They just want to be treated fairly. They want to be able to replace the homes they have. They have been living in Dublin for generations and want to remain living in Dublin. They want to be able to purchase an equivalent house in Dublin. It is as simple as that. As the scheme is currently constituted, they would be unable to do that. The Minister is on record as saying, as he has said today, that this scheme needs to drastically improve. A small number of people are affected. We are talking about a major piece of infrastructure. It would not take much for those people to be treated fairly. When we talk about being treated fairly, they need to be given a reasonable valuation for their homes.

The scheme, as currently constituted, does not take into account a lot of things. Those families, for example, need to be given a premium higher than the premium currently on offer.For example, they need to be given a premium above what is currently being offered. Anybody who is selling a house will get a valuation. We know Dublin is a competitive market and, all around the country, houses are going for far in excess of what they are valued at. However, if you have only one prospective buyer, there is no capacity for competitive bidding to increase the price. Are people really being given a fair valuation unless there is a significant premium on the valuation given to them? That uplift one would expect on an open market is not in play, so we need to look at that. As for replacing the houses, many of them are unique, one-off designs and dwellings. As it is often hard for a comparator to be found in the locality, a quantity surveyor needs to be engaged to put a proper value on it and to look at what it would cost to replicate that house someplace else. That is really important. Families should also be reimbursed for reasonable professional costs necessarily incurred through the scheme, including valuations, BER certificates, legal fees and land registry costs. People should not be out of pocket because they live next to the airport and because the airport's expansion plans require them to leave their area. This is just common decency and fairness. I know the Minister is listening to this because he has said on a number of occasions that the scheme which is there is not good enough.

I already spoke about the general power to direct the DAA for any purpose. This is one of the issues I would like the Minister to direct the DAA on. I know the ANCA decision is out for public consultation and that is going to close on 3 September. I encourage everybody to put in submissions relating to noise or any other issue because it is a really important public consultation. The engagement after that is really important. I hope the Minister will direct the new chairman of the DAA. Hopefully we will have a new CEO who will take public engagement to a different level. There needs to be a changed attitude towards the voluntary dwelling purchase scheme. I will be writing to the Minister about the issues I consider to be outstanding. For the good neighbour principle to be applied correctly, it also needs to be applied to the voluntary dwelling purchase scheme. It needs to be expanded, it needs to be decent and it needs to be fair. I hope the Minister will engage with the DAA after the public consultation closes. Families have been living in limbo for too long. It is too much stress. I have met the families. I know the pain and suffering they are going through while dealing with all the other daily issues we have to deal with, like illness, death and normal family issues. It is very difficult. You have this enormous cloud hanging over you and do not know when your home will be gone, how you will be able to replace it and how you will be able to replace the deep connection you have with your community and family living close by. We need to move this on. I know the Minister is listening to us and to the concerns. I look forward to some good engagement after 3 September and we can move this forward. Enough is enough at this stage.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senators who tabled the amendment and the Senators who have contributed to it. I do not accept the amendment, which suggests an independent assessment of DAA's voluntary purchase scheme and setting out specific standards. I will explain why. DAA has the statutory responsibility for the management, operation and development of Dublin Airport, including the implementation of the noise mitigation programme. The terms of this programme are set out in the planning conditions. Under those terms, eligibility for the noise insulation scheme, the voluntary dwelling purchase scheme and the school insulation scheme is subject to review every two years. The next review is due to commence in the coming months. There is a real opportunity to do it there. That review will use the 2025 operation and noise data, which will ensure the assessment takes place with-up-to date data that accurately reflects the noise environment experienced by local communities.

As Senator Clifford-Lee mentioned, it is also important to note that ANCA has published its draft decision on proposed noise mitigation measures associated with DAA's infrastructure application. That includes lifting the cap to 40 million passengers per annum. As the Senator said, that consultation is open until 3 September. It is really important that those residents interested in this or affected by it in whatever way engage with that process. I have said that I have engaged directly with the DAA on this already. I have written to it formally and will continue to do that. The appropriate next time to do that is once the ANCA decision is finalised and the public consultation is concluded, which will be on 3 September. Obviously, there will be a period required after that when the submissions to ANCA will be looked at. That is where the consultation is. That will happen over the coming months. There is a small number of residents negatively affected by the airport, be that from a voluntary purchase perspective or in the context of noise insulation. It looks to me that the ANCA draft decision will expand the noise insulation scheme to a wider area. We then need certainty on flight paths. There is a lot to do in this space. This Bill is not the place for the voluntary purchase scheme to sit because it is operated by Dublin Airport Authority. I know there were some who wondered if it would sit within this Bill. It was never appropriate for that to be there. However, I have the general power, should this Bill pass into an Act, to direct the airport on any matter that relates to this Bill. The work now ongoing through ANCA with its draft decision needs to conclude. There is an important opportunity for that to be done. I cannot accept the amendment.

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 9 has been ruled out of order.

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 24, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(d) the State’s obligations under national, European Union or international law relating to climate change.”.

In this Bill the Minister is setting out and giving himself the powers to amend or revoke the passenger capacity conditions, to change the passenger capacity, "where the Minister is of the opinion that the passenger capacity condition [causes] or would be likely to cause serious harm to ... the economy of the State ... international connectivity, or ... the international reputation of the State in respect of air transport." The fundamental driving factor in making his decisions and changing the numbers is this idea that it does harm to the economy of State, our connectivity or reputation. That is why we have heard the purported potential doublings or any other figures that are there. It is set up with a set of criteria that are ambiguous when we talk about the issue of the economy and the fines spoken about by Senator Conway and others. That is one thing. It is also kind of wild that we are putting forward this money somebody or particular companies could be making as potentially constituting economic harm to the State. Is that the framing? That is framed in terms where the absence of maximising the making of money is an economic harm.However, actual measurable, knowable documented harm is being done by an increase in aviation traffic for economic reasons only. We know that aviation emissions drive climate change, emissions and move us past that 1.5°C liveable planet increase and into the 2°C and beyond. We all know that climate change is accountable for the fact that there are lots of places to which nobody wants to fly any more because they are over 40°C for three or four months of the year. There are places which are not just uncomfortable but are unlivable in parts of the world due to climate change. That very real physical harm is done by the increase in our emissions, which is being done without proper regard to section 15 of the climate Act, because that has been removed. That is not a factor. The Minister is not providing for it. There is an environmental impact assessment with a question over how it is operated but that is a sub-element that may be added on to the Minister enacting the decision. The decision itself does not include any environmental criteria. The decision to make the order, about what kind of harm matters, does not include any environmental factors at all.

My amendments would simply be that when the Minister is making an order to change the passenger cap, one of the kinds of harm he might be thinking about would be if there is harm to the State's obligation under national European law or international law relating to climate change, or if there is harm to meeting the State's obligations under the Paris Agreement. I put that in as an additional approach because there are our national laws, which, sadly, can only capture internal flights, the European laws, with the current trading system, which only captures intra-European flights, and then the international space, where there is a gap for a proper measuring or accounting system regarding flights that leave Europe and go elsewhere. It was meant to be delivered by 2027 but there is a question about how it will be delivered. Some of the major countries where flights will be going, or one in particular, the United States, have even left the Paris Agreement.

That is why I have a second amendment that cuts through our national European law and international law, and also reminds us of our obligations under the Paris Agreement. Our obligations under the Paris Agreement are not just that we should be doing everything we can to keep emissions below 1.5°C and 2°C, at this liveable level. There are also obligations under the Paris Agreement of common but differentiated responsibilities. The fact is that countries which have historically higher emissions have used up more than their fair share of the available space in an atmosphere that is filling up with emissions, in a limited global commons, in which the wriggle room we have before it is unlivable is limited. We have already taken our fair share and the Minister wants to take more. When he talks about adding emissions into the mix, and how there is potential for economic measures, and there is money we could be making which we will not make if we do not do this, and one stacks that up against countries which have done almost nothing to drive climate change and have far lower emissions than us historically, maybe that remaining space is things that they need in order to actually transition, put in place basic state infrastructures such as the sewage systems that they will need as they adapt to climate catastrophe, and all of those things.

Maybe the remaining space in our collective global atmosphere is not something that we should be using up. We should have a rationale for using it any time we say it would be bad for money-making if we do not do this and maybe our global responsibilities for climate and environment should take priority. In that scenario, then maybe not this Minister, but perhaps a theoretical future Minister, may even look to the order and say we need to slightly adjust our passenger capacity conditions. I will be clear about things like international connectivity and the fact that we are on an island. I get that. I get that Ireland will not move away totally from aviation but what we should be doing is doing it responsibly. We should be giving, at a minimum, equal regard to the environmental factors as we do to the money-making potential. That is why amendment No. 10 inserts our national, European and international laws on climate change, and amendment No. 11 relates to the State's obligations under the Paris Agreement. Amendment No. 12 is trying to insert into the mechanisms that the Minister can make a variation here.

I am trying to introduce some link, even as the Government tries to cut the links between climate action, and its infrastructure, the cap, and LNG, and a whole pile of things that it says will happen and do not involve the climate Act any more. They will still involve emissions and still have the climate impacts, so I am trying to reinsert a thread whereby the Climate Change Advisory Council would be empowered to at least recommend to the Minister that there be a review where there is an opinion that the passenger capacity is causing serious harm to the State's ability to meet our national climate objectives.

The Minister has been shaking his head while I was speaking. This is the most real thing. There is nothing more real than the fact that we are living on a planet and there are physical, scientific factors at play. When you go to 40°C, it is pretty hard for an economy to keep going. When you go to 45°C, it gets harder again. Climate change is the most real thing. It gets treated as an abstraction or an add-on, or that we found a way around it, or are cutting it off here. This is physical reality, and I am appealing to the Minister to factor it in to the serious harm that he is meant to be considering when he is deciding to put passenger numbers up or down.

Joe Conway (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to augment what Senator Higgins was saying. I recall when it became almost moderately fashionable to go to places in the Middle East, like Dubai, Doha, and so on. Neighbours with children out there would come back and say they do not know how people live out there, that it was 36°C and hit 40°C once. The fact is that right now, places that are heavily serviced by aircraft, including Spain, Portugal, Italy, Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily, are almost burning at the moment. It is a harbinger of what will become of us, in prosperous Europe, in the next few years, if we do not take our responsibilities seriously. One of the great offenders is the airline industry and the untrammelled regulation of the airlines. As a matter of interest, if one bought 10,000 Ryanair shares at Christmas 2023, those shares would now have increased in value by 91%. That is an indication of the money that is being made in the airline industry, and that is just one airline.

We have really serious questions to ask and I commend Senator Higgins on exposing that. I do not think she or the House are being alarmist, but there is more to Dublin Airport and the economy of the country than simply putting it all on the altar of Mammon.

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does anybody else wish to comment? No. Does the Minister wish to respond?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not accepting amendments Nos. 10, 11 or 12. I thank the Senator for tabling them. I am empowered to make an order where I am of the opinion that the passenger cap planning condition is causing serious harm to the economy. I make no bones about that; I do not think it is a problem. I would have thought it a responsibility I would have, to be honest. Similarly, where I see there is a problem with international connectivity, that is stating the obvious and should be the case, as Minister for Transport, or the State's international reputation in air transport. That is very clearly set out and I would stand over all three of them every day of the week.

Senator Higgins also suggested I should be of the opinion that the passenger cap planning condition is causing harm to the State's obligation under national, EU or international law relating to climate change or the State's obligation under the Paris Agreement. She further suggested the Climate Change Advisory Council should issue a recommendation to amend the passenger cap, where it is of the opinion that it is likely to cause harm to the State's ability to meet its national climate objective.

I will say again that under the legislation, I am clearly mandated - and have mandated - for a full environmental impact assessment to be carried out in line with the EIA directive - and it is absolutely in line with that - which would identify, describe and assess the direct and indirect effects of making an order on several factors, including climate, and would be independently undertaken not by me, but by An Coimisiún Pleanála, prior to the making of the order. I have also made it clear that even though, and this is a fact, international aviation emissions are outside the scope of the climate action plan, we are taking actions aligned with the global approach to decarbonisation of the aviation industry, which is based on the International Civil Aviation Organization's basket of measures to ensure aviation meets the challenges of decarbonisation. That includes several things, such as airlines continuing to adopt new or more efficient aircraft, more efficient use of fuel, quieter aircraft, mandated increased use of SAF at EU level under the EU refuel aviation regulation and the EU emissions trading scheme, to name but a few, as well as the CORSIA scheme at international level.

I am not disapplying the Act at all in relation to the environmental impact assessment; that is actually being done. The climate Act does not apply anyway, so there is nothing to disapply. The reality is the environmental impact assessments will be undertaken by An Coimisiún Pleanála and not by me, and that is the appropriate place for that to be.

Overall, there is no denying the situation the world is in right now. We are way above the 1.5°C and are probably projecting a 2.3°C increase in temperatures, which is extremely worrying. However, in Ireland in the past three years we have been able to decouple emissions growth from economic growth. That is a very significant thing. We are back to pre-1990 levels of emissions in this country, and with 1.5 million more people here. Emissions are continuing to drop as the economy and population continue to grow.

Are we going to get to our 2030 climate targets? No, but we are going to get close to them and we will try to bridge that gap, particularly through energy and the acceleration of renewable energy sources. In the first few months of this year, 50% or thereabouts of our electricity was generated from renewable sources. How are we going to accelerate that? By doing things like I and Senator Noonan did in the previous Government, that is, the Planning and Development Act that is now in place and which Senator Higgins opposed vociferously in this very House, speaking for hours on end on things that enable us to accelerate renewables, improve our grid and secure clean sources of energy that are our own, as well as to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. That is what we did, and it is now coming to fruition and into effect. Within that Act which the Senator opposed at the time was the restructuring of what was An Bord Pleanála, and is now An Coimisiún Pleanála, to give it 50% extra staff and to split the corporate spine from the decision-making spine, which has made it a much more effective and efficient organisation in that regard.

It was mentioned earlier by Senator Joe Conway, and I did not mean to not respond to it, and a couple of other Senators about IFAC's calculation of what the cost of compliance would be. However, there is no criteria and no agreed formula relating to cost of compliance or, as others would say, fines. That does not exist. IFAC has come up with a figure and a range which has no basis; there is no agreement on that. We are engaging with the Commission now and we will do well to 2030.

If we look at the EPA's own projections to 2030, they have improved year-on-year. We saw a significant improvement in this year's projections to 2030 compared with last year. A major part of that was due to the accelerated electrification of our transport fleet. We are seeing that in spades now with regard to EVs on the road. I do not want to get into a whole climate debate on it, but climate and climate action are central to everything we do. Electrification, acceleration of renewables and decarbonisation are absolutely critical.

However, there is the fundamental reality that we are an island nation. If we are going to travel for business or to meet family in a sustainable and responsible way for holidays, we need to get off the island, and aviation is very important. By the way, Ireland is a world leader in aviation. Many other countries of comparable size do not even come close to where we are, and not just on the airline side, but also on aircraft leasing. One in every two planes that fly in the sky are leased through Irish companies here. We are a world leader in aircraft and engines, aircraft finance, MRO and research. That is why so many Irish men and women have been head of airlines right across the world and are world leaders in that area. This is something we should be proud, and I think many of us are.

I make no bones about the fact that an element of this legislation is about protecting the economic health of this State, the thousands of jobs this sector supports and that those jobs in Dublin Airport, an airport I live right beside, are protected and can grow. I thank the Senator for tabling the three amendments. I respect her view and opinion, as well as the manner in which she put them forward. How we are proceeding here is in a careful and considered way, so I am not accepting the three amendments.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will just respond to that. I will leave aside rehashing the Planning and Development Act. I am certainly very happy with the position I took on those points. The fast-tracking of LNG, which we flagged and were told would not happen, is happening now. I refer to the acceleration in terms of large-energy users and data centres. Those were the concerns hiding behind the windmills discussion. Of course, I wanted to see accelerated renewable energy, but we have a problem, which is that we are accelerating a number of the problems as well. That is why having proper checks and balances is important.

The fact we are a major player internationally on aviation is why we have a particular responsibility. Coming back to that comment on differentiated responsibilities, this is why how we do aviation particularly matters. It sends a signal regarding what has been described by the IPCC as one of the industries that is hardest to abate. It is one of the areas on which the world has not got a grip. It is an area where emissions are out of control and are not being reined back in.

I was clear on connectivity, in that those are very reasonable grounds, if there was a meaningful threat to our connectivity, so I do not oppose that. I am concerned about the money-making as the driving piece in that regard. There are cases to be made, but us doing aviation responsibly is particularly important because we are one of the bigger players, and it is not responsible and does not send a very good signal if one of the major players in aviation internationally decides to disapply parts of its own climate legislation, which this Bill does.

The Minister has said we will have an environmental impact assessment and he will get the commission to do it, but, under the Bill, it states that the Minister and the commission, in performing their functions, shall not be subject to the requirements referred to in section 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. The Minister has said the commission is going to do a review, but when it does that review, it will not be bound by the pretty reasonable things that are in section 15.It states:

A relevant body shall, in the performance of its functions, have regard to— (a) the most recent approved national mitigation plan,

(b) the most recent approved national adaptation framework ...

(c) the furtherance of the national transition objective, and

(d) the objective of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State.

Those are pretty reasonable things to think about, but the obligation to think about them is being removed. This is what is there. This is what disapplying section 15 means in respect of saying a review can be done, an environmental assessment undertaken and everything else. The Minister would not be removing that obligation unless he was pretty sure that the commission, in doing its job with regard to section 15 and actually having to think about climate mitigation and our goals in this regard, might not come up with the answer that the Minister or lobbyists would like. This is why we disapply these things, and then say the commission is doing its job. It is not, because the Minister is tying its hands in respect of what it should be considering. The Minister is then asking us to accept that he is so great because he is letting it give him advice.

This is not good enough and not adequate. It is irresponsible. It is not about saying that everybody has to travel in a certain way and every flight has to be taken away. Everybody takes flights. The question is whether there should be a constant checking, balancing and responsible review to ensure there would be proper measures. The Minister is removing checks and balances and replacing them with his own customised ones. It is not good enough in respect of what the ultimate picture, including the ultimate economic picture, and the fines, collectively, will be for everybody else. In that regard, I am going to proceed with pressing my amendments. I am not satisfied that the measures are otherwise addressed.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 24, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(d) the State’s obligations under the Paris Agreement.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 24, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “(3) The Climate Change Advisory Council shall issue a recommendation to the Minister to amend a passenger capacity condition where it is of the opinion that such a condition is causing or would be likely to cause serious harm to the State’s ability to meet the National Climate Objective.”.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 26, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(14) The Minister’s power under this Act shall be limited solely to the amendment or revocation of a planning condition relating to the maximum number of passengers permitted to use Dublin Airport annually, and shall not extend to any other planning condition.

(15) The Minister shall, not later than 12 months following commencement, lay before the houses of the Oireachtas a report reviewing the exercise of this power.

This amendment is all about the power given to the Minister under this Bill and bringing legal clarity to that power,. The Bill is presented as only dealing with the passenger cap issue. This amendment would ensure that the Minister's powers cannot be expanded to any other planning conditions attached to Dublin Airport. By no means am I saying that we do not trust the Minister for Transport, but next year, the year after or the year after that, it may not be the current Minister, Deputy O'Brien, making decisions, and it may, instead, be someone who may intend to look at these powers and expand them beyond the passenger cap. The amendment is really just to future-proof the legislation to make sure the powers in it are limited to just the passenger cap and ensure it stays that way.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator. What she is looking for is already in the Bill. I will just explain why. Section 2 includes a really clear definition of the "passenger capacity condition", which is that it "means a condition relating to the number of passengers that may use Dublin Airport for the purpose of travelling by air to or from another airport in any period". As such, the power I have under section 25, which we referred to earlier, is limited to amending the passenger cap condition, which is what is being proposed by the Senator. Both these provisions address recommendations from the Oireachtas joint committee to ensure the scope of the power is limited. The sunset clause is there too. If planning permission is granted under the current application, the order then falls. In future, the Minister could seek a further order to direct the DAA to make another submission. It is not just a big-bang approach on this aspect. It is very much focused on protecting the existing planning application there, because that is current. I believe that what the Senators are seeking is well covered in the Bill.

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 28, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “Periodic environmental impact assessments

27. (1) Where an order has been made under section 25, the Minister shall, not later than 2 years after the coming into operation of that order and every 2 years thereafter, ensure that an environmental impact assessment of the operation of Dublin Airport is carried out.

(2) An environmental impact assessment under this section shall assess—

(a) greenhouse gas emissions associated with passenger activity at Dublin Airport,

(b) air quality impacts,

(c) noise impacts,

(d) impacts on biodiversity and protected sites,

(e) impacts on surface transport networks and congestion,

(f) impacts on public health, and

(g) such other environmental effects as the Minister considers appropriate.

(3) The assessment shall be published and laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

(4) Where an assessment carried out under this section identifies significant adverse environmental effects, the Minister shall, within 6 months, publish proposals to mitigate or address those effects.”.

I will be very brief because I am conscious others want to have the chance to vote on their amendments. This amendment is seeking to ensure that there would be ongoing periodic environmental assessments, and that these would look at issues in respect of greenhouse gas, air quality, noise impacts, impacts on biodiversity and protected sites, impacts on the surface transport networks and congestion, impacts on public health, and other such environmental effects as the Minister may consider appropriate.

It is a useful idea not just to have an environmental impact assessment of whatever quality may be there at the original time of the order, but that there would be ongoing environmental impact assessments. This would allow us to see the impact of the new order and the new rule, and this would be monitored every two years. It would also cover some of the issues in relation to air quality and noise impact which are of significant importance to the communities directly under the flight paths or in the adjacent areas.

Lorraine Clifford-Lee (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are all worried about the environmental impact of Dublin Airport. I live in close proximity to the airport. I speak to the communities from around the airport nearly daily. I am very much aware of the horticultural industry in north County Dublin and the need to protect it.

The Senator has made some very good points. I listened carefully to what she was saying in her previous contributions. I have also listened to what the Minister is saying on this. I know he is very aware of it. I have spoken to him a number of times about the environmental impact of Dublin Airport. He, too, lives in close proximity to the airport, so it is something we deal with daily and something we are very aware of.

The general power already contained in this Act would facilitate what the Senator is seeking in this amendment. I do not think this new section is necessary, but I would like to hear what the Minister has to say in relation to it.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not accepting amendment No. 18. The amendment is looking to have an environmental impact assessment every two years. Let us say, for example, there is a situation where the DAA wants to develop something. It would have to make a planning application. That would be the case for any infrastructure. This Bill does not deal with infrastructure, but with the cap itself. If the DAA wanted to build a new terminal, a new pier, a new stand or whatever, it would have to go and make a planning application. That is important. It would have to be environmentally assessed by the planning authority. Under this legislation, I have mandated that the making of an order also be environmentally assessed before any order is made in relation to the airport cap. That is clear.

I have already highlighted the planning decision on the DAA’s infrastructure application. We discussed that at some length over the course of the last nearly two hours. That application seeks to raise the passenger cap to 40 million and provide for much-needed additional infrastructure at Dublin Airport. Anyone travelling out of the airport right now will see the work happening in terminal 1, which badly needed refurbishment work. I remember when terminal 2 was opened in 2008-09. Many commentators, and some politicians in this very Chamber, said it would be a white elephant, a waste of money, would never be used, was not needed and should not be done, but now it is full. We had many arguments against terminal 2 at the time, including cost and all that. Let us imagine what the airport would be like right now if we did not have it.The reason I am saying that is the planning application is there right now.

To reiterate, if this legislation passes - and I hope it will; I am quite sure it will at this stage - we will have to enact it. It will go through a process then. The environmental reports and assessments will be submitted to An Coimisiún Pleanála. An Coimisiún Pleanála will then submit them to me and then we will make an order on foot of that. While that is happening, Fingal County Council is making its decision on the infrastructure application. ANCA has commenced its consultation on noise and it will be open until 3 September. That is important because it deals with a lot of the noise issues that we are talking about. We want to know what people think about that draft decision. That then goes back in and it feeds into Fingal's infrastructure decision on the infrastructure application the DAA has made. I do not know whether it will or not but if it grants that application and gives permission, that would supersede any order that I would make. That is that element of it done. It would then be about future growth within the airport.

We have actually already started the review of that 2018 Act, which I debated from Opposition in the other House and actually supported it, but got changes to it. A lot of people at the time were very unhappy that ANCA was the noise regulator because they saw it sat within Fingal County Council. To be fair, as a separate entity, ANCA has proven its independence and expertise. It has done a really good job in the main in that regard. Others who wanted to put it in the IAA. Others did not want it at all. I think Shane Ross was Minister for transport at the time. That has been done. That is in place. This decision will be made. I do not have a timeframe. Hopefully it will be soon after the submissions from the public on the draft noise decision is made. That would feed into both.

We have already started the review on that legislation to see where future planning for airports and Dublin Airport should sit. Should it be strategic infrastructure and go to An Coimisiún Pleanála? Should it stay within Fingal County Council? That is for another day. We have to deal with the reality of what we have right now, which is that there is an effective stay on the cap at the moment because of the current case that is being taken. The airport is able to operate above 32 million because there is a stay on the cap right now. It is important that clarity is given for future development and growth within the airport and that the airport is not going to drop 4 million passengers or else the airport is just going to stay at 32 million. That is not a sustainable way forward. New routes will not come to the airport and we will not be able to manage routes to other parts of the world out of Dublin. It will inhibit business and growth. It will restrict jobs. It would mean we would lose jobs, frankly. If we stayed at 32 million or reverted to 32 million, we would lose thousands of jobs in Dublin Airport. I do not want that to happen. They are normal, good people, who are working there whose families are deriving good incomes from various jobs within the airport. It is important that this is understood too. Many people in the north Dublin area want the cap lifted as well. That is just the reality of it.

With regard to Senator Higgins's amendment, there would be no other piece of infrastructure in the country, that I am aware of, that would be subject to ongoing environmental assessments, which is what the Senator is proposing. There is no infrastructure that would require a constant loop of preparing material for assessments and having assessments carried out constantly. They would be done every two years. Does the Senator know how long these assessments take? It would be a constant hamster wheel of environmental assessments. It is madness. It would completely tie us. There would be no opportunity to grow anything and it would set a dangerous precedent. That is okay if the Senator does not want anything to grow. If you want to lose thousands of jobs in the airport, restrict people's ability to travel and restrict connectivity, then you will go with the Senator's amendment. That is what I am not going to do and that is why I am not going to accept it.

All of that said, and I have been very clear earlier on, there are genuine issues that people have. A small number of residents need to be dealt with. I am firm in my belief that this needs to happen and that there is certainty around flight paths as well. We will carry out an independent assessment. I will instruct that there be an independent assessment of flight paths and operation of flight paths once this legislation passes and the decision is made. That has to be done at the appropriate time. I cannot have an independent assessment while there are pending decisions with regard to the operation of the airport. We will do it very shortly after that. Respecting the fact that the Senator has tabled her amendment, it would not work. It would tie the airport up in knots. This provision that she would put in exists nowhere else. It is one of the most important strategic assets that the State has, our major international airport, and the Senator would tie it up in knots by passing this amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not a piece of infrastructure that is subject to an EIA on an ongoing basis, it is a decision in relation to the passenger cap that the Minister has made. That is the piece-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

But you tie up the actual infrastructure.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The idea is that there would be assessment of the air quality impacts, the greenhouse gas emissions, the noise impacts-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The noise is monitored.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----the impact on biodiversity and congestion on public health. Then that would be information which the Minister has. Then the Minister could then respond to it. It is not a new planning process. It is simply saying in regard to that discretionary power the Minister is granting himself under this legislation that, as well as thinking about an environmental impact assessment before the Minister makes the order, they might look at it after the fact. Honestly, those are things they should be monitoring all the time.

It is disingenuous to suggest that this is a separate planning process, which would be on an ongoing basis. It is simply a monitoring process, and the Minister should be monitoring the noise, the air quality and the greenhouse gas emissions on an ongoing basis in the national airport. That is a fairly reasonable thing. Where significant adverse impacts are identified, the Minister would publish proposals as to what he is going to do. That is actually what the amendment stated. You would not have thought it from the Minister's response, but that is what the actual amendment looked for. I think it was pretty reasonable, and I am pressing it.

Lorraine Clifford-Lee (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to touch on something the Minister said earlier in relation to the flight paths and the independent assessment of the flight paths he said he would order on the conclusion of this legislation. I would like to get some more information in relation to that because I have spoken ad nauseam about the flight paths, their impact and the real noise pollution that is going on for the residents who are living directly under the flight paths in places such as Ballyboughal, Lusk, Kilsallaghan, Kilcoskan and all of these areas. I want to know about the independent assessment. When it that going to take place? Who is going to undertake it? How long will the assessment take? Will we, as public representatives, and the residents have an input in relation to the terms of reference of this independent assessment? If I could get some answers on that, I would really appreciate it.

In relation to something that Senator Higgins mentioned regarding noise monitoring, the noise is being monitored. It is something that I keep on top of. I know the residents locally keep on top of the noise monitoring. All of that feeds into ANCA. ANCA has a draft report out for public consultation at the moment. It is something that we should all be engaging on. We should all be making our submissions on that. The closing date is 3 September. I would like all of us here who have sat through this debate and many other debates to engage on that and put our views forward. I would appreciate some information with regard to the independent assessment.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senator Clifford-Lee. What I was mentioning to Senator Alice-Mary Higgins was the fact that we are not talking about the piece of infrastructure but effectively the decision with regard to the passenger cap, which relates to Dublin Airport. Therefore, it will tie up Dublin Airport in a constant loop of environmental impact assessments if her amendment were to pass.

In relation to the independent assessment, I am committing to an independent assessment of the flight paths at Dublin Airport. I will undertake that at the appropriate time. The most suitable point for this work will most likely be when the final decision is made regarding the north runway relevant action. We will get this legislation through and then the final decision will be made. We could not have an outstanding application there that is pending a decision. It would have to be done cleanly. We will do that. The timing will ensure the assessment is based on the most accurate and current operational data, and I have said that in the Dáil. I am happy to say it again in the Seanad.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister.

As it is now 4 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Seanad of this day: "That amendment No. 18 is hereby negatived in Committee, that section 27 is hereby agreed to in Committee and in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby received for final consideration and that the Bill is hereby passed."