2026-06-30

Amendments Nos. 1, 12 and 13 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1: In page 6, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “ “international connectivity” means the range and frequency of scheduled passenger and cargo air services operating to and from Dublin Airport, having regard to— (a) the number of direct routes available from Dublin Airport to destinations outside the State, (b) the number of carriers operating such routes, and (c) the frequency of services on those routes;”. There are a number of references to international connectivity in this Bill. I raised this on Second Stage last week and the Minister thought it was amusing that I did not understand the definition of "international connectivity". I understand a plain English reading of it but the phrase permeates the Bill and it is used by the Government as a justification for the lifting of this cap. The Government says the Bill is to increase our international connectivity. With 32 million or more flights already leaving the country to international destinations, the question is what is enough international connectivity. With amendment No. 1, I propose to insert a definition in the Bill. We are told all the time that connectivity is key to our success as a nation and that, as an island nation, we cannot leave ourselves stranded and we need international connectivity. However, it strikes me we already have quite a lot of international connectivity with 30-odd million flights going through Dublin Airport already. If we are going to increase flights on this basis, it is important we have metrics by which we can measure international connectivity and it is important to define it because the level of emissions associated with higher or lower levels of international connectivity should be determined by the metrics used. This falls under the transport brief but it has a massive climate consequence. It is worth noting that only 5% of the population of the entire world has ever taken a flight. We are in an incredibly privileged position here. This relates to climate justice and our obligations to others in a world where 95% of people on the globe have never been on a plane and the Minister is now proposing potentially to double the number of flights from Dublin Airport. Therefore, throwing around a phrase like "international connectivity" gives the Minister carte blanche to continually increase the number of people going through the airport and the number of flights being taken and that is not necessarily a good thing. We need to talk about demand management in international aviation. There is no such thing as sustainable aviation fuel. It is never going to happen and the airline industry acknowledges that, so we have to try to have some metrics for and control over the number of flights in the country. Furthermore, this is specifically for Dublin. There is no talk here about balanced regional development. This is all about Dublin Airport. The Minister talks about sustainable development but there is nothing sustainable about not having any cap. It is not as though the Minister is replacing the current cap with another level of cap. This will just be an absolute free for all. My other amendment in the grouping, amendment No. 12, is to address a provision that essentially gives an open invitation to airlines to bully the Government and talk down Ireland if they perceive there to be some inhibitor of their commercial interests in Dublin. It gives licence to a Minister for Transport to change planning conditions where they are perceived to be potentially damaging to " the international reputation of the State in respect of air transport". It is extremely open-ended, entirely unfalsifiable and there is no objective standard for reputational damage. There is no evidence threshold or definition. The provision could be invoked on the basis of adverse commentary by Michael O'Leary, for example. We are essentially enshrining corporate bullying of the State in this law. That is why I want to delete that line. It gives carte blanche to airlines to talk down the country and say they are not happy that it is sufficiently internationally connected, so they will pull all their flights and that Ireland has a terrible reputation for international connectivity or whatever the buzzword is. It will essentially allow airlines to bully the State and Ministers to use that bullying as an excuse to raise the cap again and again, without heed to any of our climate obligations, either our domestic climate targets or international ones. These emissions do count. Even though we do not count international aviation emissions, they do go somewhere and these actions have consequences whether the Government likes it or not.

The Minister is moving this with undue haste before the summer. It is absolutely wrong that a Bill of this importance is being guillotined after two hours and many of the amendments probably will not get a fair hearing. I will comment on this grouping of amendments, which talk about connectivity. We made these points on Second Stage. Balanced regional development has gone out the window. We also have a duty to connect the west of Ireland and other airports, such as those in Cork, Shannon, Mayo and so on. The airlines are delighted with this because, potentially, everyone will fly into Dublin and then be ferried on another plane to an outlying area because most people visit locations in the west of Ireland. The feeling of many residents in the area is that what is being attempted is to turn Dublin Airport into a European airline hub like Frankfurt, Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Heathrow airports. One of the principal reasons residents contest this is the lack of a night-time cap. All the main airline hubs have night-time restrictions. The combined total for the four airports I mentioned is less than that for Dublin Airport on its own and the night-time flight caps are not imposed at all in Dublin Airport. Planes do not make money when parked so the airlines are dying to get rid of the cap. I spoke to residents earlier today. Turning to the second amendment in this grouping, there are international duties and laws under environmental laws. If airport capacity is being increased, one would imagine that a fund would be set up for things like sound insulation and relocation for those who want to move, as some do. I have been told - I would like the Minister to clarify this - that has not happened and that residents have been forced to go to court because he has not met them about this. That is the very least that needs to be done. For example, the planning for real process was one of the initiatives that was set up. It was to get an expert planner to discuss it. The residents say they cannot get funding for it and that the Minister will not meet them. There are people who will be impacted by this increase, should it go ahead tonight, who are willing to relocate. Thornton Hall is an area that has been mentioned. It was not developed in the way anticipated in years gone by, and it could be an area where homes are built to facilitate people who want to move. All of these are very practical things that need to be ironed out with residents if this goes ahead, which, of course, it should not. What about the best insulation and air conditioning? Mechanical ventilation is mentioned, but people are not able to open their windows any more. Think of the effect of the heat we had last week on residents who live near Dublin Airport who cannot open their windows. All those people should have proper air conditioning. Residents are considering a polluter pays fund. The airlines are going to be the polluters, and they should pay for these mitigation measures. This is standard under any international laws. My area of Dublin West is obviously not the only part affected but Hollystown, Hollywoodrath and Portmarnock are going to have much increased flights. The Minister was on Fingal County Council at the same time as me when decisions were taken by local authorities to allow development at the outer limits of Dublin Airport. It is not that long ago. Now those people are going to find that the noise levels will be even more intolerable when the projected massive increase in passengers goes ahead. The night-time flights will be at least doubled. That is the estimate of many residents. Rather than 60, there will be 120. The aircraft noise competent authority is not fulfilling its brief. What about all the arguments around us being in the middle of a heat dome? Europe is enduring the hottest temperatures it has ever had. We will probably be in the same situation with high temperatures again next week or the week after, and much more frequently. We should not be passing a Bill like this that increases the number of flights. We should be discouraging people from taking flights. We should be reducing the number of flights in light of the climate crisis. Instead, the Government is marketing Dublin Airport as a hub on a European scale. That is ludicrous because we do not have the transport infrastructure to facilitate such a thing. We do not have a light rail system. At the very least, the Minister has to commit to meeting residents in an open way and to cater for overall the impact that what is proposed will have on their lives if the Government rams the Bill through tonight. That is the very least that should be done. Residents are not even mentioned in the Bill.

My amendment No. 13 has been grouped with Deputy Ahern's amendment. I will not dwell on it, but the same point I made about the previous Bill also applies in respect of this one, namely the fact that only two hours have been provided for the Committee and Remaining Stages. Detailed issues have to be addressed, including climate, balanced regional development and the significant impact of noise pollution on people who reside in the vicinity of the airport. These are real issues in respect of which there is disagreement. Maybe if we had time to do this at the select committee, we could have found resolutions in respect of a small number of these issues. However, we have been denied the opportunity to do so on foot of the way this Bill is being rushed through the House. Again, this is the only example in this Dáil of a Bill being rammed through on Committee and Remaining Stages. That is not acceptable, and it does not treat appropriately the issues so many TDs from all parties spoke about during pre-legislative scrutiny. Everyone was saying that it is terrible for the residents, that we are listening to them and that we want to help them. When a Bill is banged through the Dáil in two hours, that is neither listening nor a genuine effort to help. My amendment is intended to allow a future Minister to amend the passenger cap for pro-climate reasons. The Bill currently allows the Minister to intervene where the passenger cap is judged to cause serious economic or connectivity harm, but there is no equivalent situation should this Minister or a future Minister believe the number of passengers is causing significant environmental or climate harm. The purpose of my amendment is to recognise that there is a power, but it is a power that can be used in different ways. It recognises that there is a climate issue here. The Bill as drafted recognises one set of risks but not the other. It would be a reasonable compromise for the Minister to accept this amendment. In that case, the Bill would not be pro- or anti-cap; it would simply be future-proofed to allow a Minister to consider climate or environmental considerations in the same way as economic interests. The question of how we deal with the 32 million passenger cap, which was put in as a planning condition initially, is of course central to what we are looking at here. Everybody recognises that flying is essential for an island nation, but how we deal with the situation caused by the 2007 planning application is what is at issue. Last year, just over 36 million passengers went through the airport in breach of the cap. The DAA has brought a planning application using the existing mechanisms in order to bring that up to 40 million. The Minister and his team floated the idea of 60 million passengers going through Dublin Airport in future, which would be equivalent to the numbers JFK Airport saw in 2024 and 2025. That is a huge scale. In this Bill, we are opening the door to any scale of development. It is not a planned or graduated increase; it is the removal of a cap to allow any number of flights to take place. Not even the DAA went that far in the planning application it submitted. That will have climate consequences, which will, no doubt, be addressed in later amendments, but it will also cause significant issues with increased noise in the area of the airport. Later, I will be talking about making reference to the noise abatement objective for Dublin Airport and including that in the Bill as one of the measures to try to provide some degree of reassurance to residents in the area. The committee heard from the likes of Ryanair. In many situations, Michael O’Leary has said that people knew what they were getting into when they bought houses in Swords, Malahide, Hollywoodrath and Dublin 15. That is an outrageous statement. People buy houses where they can afford to buy them. That is the nature of house purchasing in Ireland right now, and some people, if they could afford Kilmartin Grove or Hollywoodrath, chose to live there, whether that is in private purchase, affordable, social, cost-rental or build-to-rent homes. People do not have huge choice in where they have a home here right now because of the wider issues in our property market and sometimes people have to buy where the price matches their budget. That is an area which is already affected by a high number of flights and which is going to be further affected, especially if the exponential growth permitted under this legislation takes place. What is proposed is going to have a major impact, and it is not acceptable for the owners and beneficiaries of these large airlines to just dismiss people’s very real concerns. This impacts my constituency. I have canvassed in the areas to which I refer and have heard the impact of noise on these households. That impact is only going to grow as a result of this Bill.

Others have referred to the speed at which this legislation and the previous Bill on LNG are being fast-tracked through the Dáil. There has not been sufficient time for debate or interrogation. Sufficient time has not been allocated to allow all Members to have input and, potentially, to make the legislation stronger and better, which is really what our job is. It is interesting to see how quickly the Government can get certain legislation through the system. I wish there was an equal emphasis by the Government on getting other things delivered. Why are we not seeing similar speed, energy and focus to get additional battery storage up and running or the interconnector to France, which has been delayed, put in place? It has been repeated many times, but we have less offshore wind energy now than we did 20 years ago. I was on Brittas beach at the weekend enjoying the weather and looking at the seven pillars out in the Irish Sea. There are no turbines on them because they have been decommissioned. The Minister spoke about the Government's priorities and where it spends its energy. It seems that this Government is spending its energy on pushing through solutions to problems that are being created because it has not done the work. The reason we are in this position is because it has not looked at the framework. It has not been strategic. Deputy Ahern referred to metrics in the context of his amendment. I absolutely agree with him. There is a similar thread going through this Bill and the previous Bill, and that is the need for robust analysis and strategic management. We have a similar situation with data centres. Five years ago, I stood in this Chamber and asked for strategic management of data centres because the Government's approach of just rolling out the red carpet was going leave us in trouble. That has proven to be the case. We are there now. It is costing the State and domestic energy users a huge amount of money and is locking us into a very intensive, energy-reliant system. The position with LNG is similar. I do not think we have had a full analysis, review and evidence provided as to why we need an LNG reserve. Are there alternatives? Is there an alternative way to shore up our energy security? I believe there is. I do not think there has been the necessary holistic analysis of the impact that lifting the cap will have. I do not believe that roads capacity was the correct mechanism to use in order to limit numbers at the airport. I do not believe that was ever the right approach. The question for us now is what is the correct metric to use to assess the airport. I do not think that level of analysis has been carried out. I mention that in one of my amendments. Has there been an economic analysis? Are we looking at regional development? Are we taking account emissions, noise pollution, the impact on residents or on housing in the area? When making long-term decisions of this nature, a level of work should go on behind scenes in the context of carrying out the relevant analysis and gathering the necessary evidence. I just do not think that has happened in this instance, and I do not believe it was done in respect of the previous Bill we discussed either. I want to speak briefly to my amendment No. 13, which is in this group and which relates to our obligations. The State has obligations. The Minister signed up to them. He has agreed with our national obligations when it comes to climate. In fact, it was the previous Government brought forward the legislation in that regard. The majority of Deputies in the previous Dáil supported that legislation. We all worked hard to make sure it was as strong as possible. We have European Union directives to which we have to adhere. We must also adhere to and be cognisant of international law. In the rush to get these major development investments over the line, the Minister is really just pushing aside all those obligations. Unfortunately, it should not and cannot work that way. We need to take these issues into account, because the Minister is not just making this decision for the next five years and keeping Michael O'Leary happy for the next five or ten years. This is something that will be with us for a long time. When it is done, the Minister needs to make sure that it is done right. There is an onus and an obligation on him to uphold all those directives and laws he has signed up to. It cannot be the case that he just closes his eyes and pretends he never did so or has workarounds, because it really just does not work that way. Essentially, it is stated in our climate objectives state that an authority has to have regard to them. I do not understand why the Minister is trying to override these basic measures and requirements that we have. This is something we will regret in the long term. I also want to raise point with the Minister that we need to be strategic about this. He has to have the analysis carried out. In this instance, he has not done so.

It has already been said by others, but I am also struck by the pace at which this legislation has progressed and is progressing through the House to a point where it will reach completion this evening. It is fair to say that for the first 18 months of the lifetime of this Government, we have seen very little by way of legislation come through the House. Suddenly, however, we are under dramatic pressure to get this legislation through without any sort of real scrutiny. Providing such scrutiny is why we are all here. That begs the question as to who is writing this type of legislation and who is writing transport policy for this country. There are certain words in the Bill, which just reads like an advert for Ryanair. How does the Minister determine what connectivity is? What the amendment seeks to put in is a definition of that. Instead, we are going to have a situation where a future Minister will have to determine what takes priority and whether it will be connectivity or the climate. I have to hope that future Ministers will understand that an obligation is not a choice. An obligation is something that we must do, and to exempt what is proposed from the provisions of section 15 of the climate Act is quite preposterous. Last week, I raised with the Minister the fact that the crux of this legislation, in the first instance, is not necessarily to do with climate; rather, it is do with local infrastructure. That remains the case. Yet, here we are knowing more. When we know more, surely we have to do more. In that regard, we now propose to place a level of power that is centralised in a ministerial order. That concerns me, and it should concern everyone watching. We have bodies in place that are statutorily responsible for land use the planning of infrastructure in Ireland. The Minister does not need me to tell him about how abject a failure the strategic housing development policy was in that it bypassed local authorities and went straight to An Coimisiún Pleanála. The Minister is saying he got rid of it-----

I did.

-----and now we are looking to do the same thing by bypassing local authorities and An Coimisiún Pleanála, which are the bodies responsible for making very important planning decisions. They will never be perfect and neither will this House. However, their being bypassed is a matter of concern that I want to emphasise on the record of the House. We are speaking about this in a context where the WHO has recognised that there have been 1,300 excess deaths in Europe in the past month due to the recent heatwave. Every conversation about aviation expansion must surely focus primarily on our future and our climate future. We do not record carbon emissions caused by aviation in our budgets. That is wrong, and it is something we need to really consider. I have spoken to many experts - I am sure the Minister is speaking to the relevant sectoral interests - who told me that putting more exemptions into section 15 of the climate Act will not help the situation. Actually, what it will so is dramatically undermine the importance of the Act. That is why I ultimately believe that we are guillotining this legislation. It is to stymie debate and undermine the pre-legislative scrutiny report, which was so comprehensive. Where are the recommendations made in that regard contemplated in this legislation?

We went over that on Second Stage.

I will finish on this. What we are faced with in the context of this legislation is the potential for future Ministers to end up in court as a result of the State's duties under the climate Act not being fulfilled. I look forward to the Minister's comment on that. It is unlawful that what we are trying to do is not only bypass the statutory bodies, but also not fulfil our obligations under domestic law when it comes to the climate Act. That merits further scrutiny, yet in approximately 60 minutes, it will all be done and dusted.

The Minister was not here when I spoke earlier on the LNG Bill, so I will make the point to him now. What the Minister is doing tonight is disgraceful. This is, in six hours, a bonfire of our climate commitments. What we are seeing in action is the Minister's abandonment of targets that we were told many times were legally binding and, therefore, we did not need to worry and the Government would do everything. This is what this means. It is what the Minister has done in terms of LNG. It is what the Minister is doing now. What the Minister is doing is a disgrace - the content of it - but the way that he is doing it is outrageous. It is utterly outrageous that we are expected to deal with a Bill such as this, the Bill we just dealt with and the next Bill we are dealing with in two hours' time, with Committee Stage and Report Stage all in one go. We will not get to a tiny fraction of the amendments. We will not have any sort of detailed engagement. It is not because we are under much pressure for time, but because the Minister does not want to debate this stuff. The Minister does not want the emperor to be seen, and said, to have no clothes and that, on this issue, the Minister has not even done an economic impact assessment even though he is proposing to disapply the climate obligations. It is such a joke to say that we have these climate obligations that are legally binding and we are never going to do anything that is bad for the environment even while disapplying the climate obligations that are legally binding. It makes them entirely worthless. Aviation is now doing more climate harm in Ireland than cars. What the Minister is hiding behind is that aviation emissions are not counted in our climate targets, but as has been asked, so what? We are not in this only for where the emissions are counted. The climate keeps the score. The greenhouse gas emissions are counted where it matters in terms of the impact it will have on the world that our children and our children's children will struggle to live in. Another outrageous feature of what is being proposed is the centralising of decision-making about removing the cap outright into one person, namely, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, the Minister. Unlimited expansion of Dublin Airport is effectively promised here. The Minister has previously referred to 60 million passengers a year, a number almost double the current cap. The Minister has done no evaluation of the climate or environmental implications this will lead to. He has done no evaluation of the economic, social and health costs of just letting Dublin Airport rip at the behest of Michael O'Leary. No climate or biodiversity experts were consulted by the Minister. The excellent group Children's Rights Over Flights tried to meet the Minister. There were numerous requests but no chance to meet him. There was no consideration of children's rights, including their right to a stable climate, even as very young children died from extreme heat in France, and local opposition to the airport for health, noise and environmental reasons was ignored, as was the recommendation of the committee after pre-legislative scrutiny stage "that meaningful engagement is undertaken by the daa with local communities to mitigate the impact of noise from the north runway." No such thing has taken place. Let the Minister be in no doubt that what is happening is that the profits of the likes of Michael O'Leary, Ryanair and the very big aviation corporations are being put before children's health. To avoid a proper light being shone on that, a proper debate being held on what is going on and a proper discussion of the various amendments we have, the Government just rams it all through, sandwiches it all together and does it in two hours. Presumably, Michael O'Leary would be very happy.

I thank Deputy Ahern for tabling this amendment. It makes sense that the Bill should include a definition of "international connectivity" to ensure that the Minister does not have free rein to cite international connectivity as a reason to get rid of the passenger cap and that there are some guardrails for citing this reason. Section 25 sets out the grounds on which the Minister can decide to revoke a passenger capacity condition, and this amendment would give a definition for one of the grounds on which the Minister can revoke it, since there is currently no definition of "international connectivity". We support the amendment. Ireland is an island nation. We had a meeting in Cork Airport on Friday morning. While there is great work being carried out at Cork Airport, I am not sure that the long-term plan has been looked at properly by the Government to ensure that there is Luas connectivity, maybe down to Wilton, as well as easy fixes such as a bus lane up to the airport and a widening of the existing road. That needs to be looked at with some haste. Our connectivity is not optional and our economy, our tourism sector, our diaspora and our ability to attract investment all depend on it. It is the linchpin for hundreds of thousands of jobs and there could be no question that we need a proper aviation strategy. Dublin Airport is fundamental to that, but the passenger cap has been outgrown and is really out of step with reality. Last year, there were 36 million passengers through Dublin Airport when, as everyone knows, the cap was at 32 million. A 4 million difference is not a rounding error. There is something going wrong. The passenger cap is not really realistic any more but we do not want to merely rubber-stamp the decision that is being taken by the Government. With the cap, we must ensure that there is essential progress but this Bill exposes, if nothing else, the absence of any long-term coherent aviation strategy from the Government. As in Cork Airport, we must plan not only for ten years ahead, but 20 years, 30 years and 40 years and increase capacity in our regional airports, because they are a key to unlocking Ireland's potential. From Kerry to Cork, Shannon, Knock, Waterford, Donegal, Belfast, Derry and beyond, there is unlocked potential. We must also engage with the fact that local communities have felt ignored, particularly in north County Dublin and Meath, and overlooked for years. Proper community consultation on, for example, night flights does not mean preventing progress. It can enhance proposals and plans. This Bill represents an opportunity to oblige the Minister, and the DAA most importantly, to do a better job. The amendments that we have put forward aim to tackle these issues. There has been neglect of our national aviation policy. There is no doubt about it. A year later, we are still operating without a policy. Despite parliamentary questions, we still have not obtained clarity from the Government as to when this long-promised update will be delivered. How can we have any confidence in the Government's approach, particularly to the regional airports, with a policy framework that is more than ten years out of date? When we are lifting the passenger cap, the Government must place equal energy, ambition and investment into developing the regional airports because 80% of passengers are processed through Dublin. Cork gets a fraction, even though its numbers have increased by 63% over the past ten years. Shannon, Knock, Kerry and Donegal are all far below their potential and that is as a result of Government inaction. Regional airports are not only transport hubs. They support tourism, create jobs and provide a vital link to our emigrant communities, for example, in London, Manchester, Coventry and Leeds. Communities are also connected to Europe and beyond. Funding, of course, remains piecemeal and is insufficient. Route development is limited, infrastructure investment is slow and there is no overarching plan tying it all together, which is a missed opportunity. We propose a new national aviation policy be delivered within six months, one that reflects the realities of modern aviation and sets out a clear path for the future with clear targets for regional airport growth, annual reporting to ensure accountability and a regional aviation impact assessment, so that Dublin's expansion does not come at the expense of the rest of the country. Although the Government has the regional airports programme, it is essential regional airports are not treated as an afterthought but they should be viewed as a key priority. This task force should be specifically focused on growing passenger numbers in Shannon, Cork and Knock, supporting new international routes, such as a transatlantic route out of Cork, which would incentivise airlines to base aircraft outside Dublin and improve transport links to regional airports. If we are serious about balanced regional development, we cannot simply talk about it but we have to plan, invest and deliver it.

As Deputy Daly has outlined, we support the removal of the cap but there needs to be effective oversight and transparency in terms of the definitions and powers it gives the Minister when coming to the decision to give a ministerial order. This will ensure local communities are engaged with and listened to. This has to strike the right balance between ensuring our international connectivity while protecting local communities and local residents who will have to deal with the consequences of this. At the very least, there should be protections in place for them. We have several amendments submitted in that regard because, of course, there have been ongoing issues with flight paths, noise and much more. The first amendment here speaks to our international connectivity. Air travel is, of course, essential for us as an island nation, whether that is work, study or opportunities to visit friends and family. It is absolutely critical for us to be part of the wider world. That is why this is an important Bill. However, in many ways, it is frustrating that Government is on the one hand lifting the cap at Dublin Airport while not putting the same efforts into promoting and supporting the use of our regional airports, such as Shannon, Knock and other airports across the country. It is important to say airports like Shannon and Knock, which are the two most local to me, provide an absolutely fantastic service to people. They want to grow, expand and provide more flights. They are absolutely key to our regional economy in the west of Ireland, in terms of driving tourism into those parts of the country. However, the reality is that well over 80% of the State's air passenger traffic goes through Dublin Airport. That is an absolutely huge imbalance. It represents a policy failure to strike the right balance and to promote and support the use of those regional airports, which would also reduce the level of traffic going through Dublin Airport and support greater growth opportunities in the west of Ireland, particularly given that balanced regional development is something we talk about so much and to which Government often pay lip service. However, this is a prime example of where balanced regional development is not happening, where we are not supporting infrastructural development in the west of Ireland and where Dublin is outpacing the rest of the country significantly. The investment has to be there from Government to deliver on all this. We need a specific task force put in place to focus on this issue to grow our regional airports and support their use. We have to start taking this issue seriously. It has been over ten years since the national aviation policy was published, and there is still no sign as to when that long-promised policy will be delivered. Without an overarching policy that reflects the developments in aviation and that is going to support balanced regional development in aviation, how can we have any confidence in Government's efforts to get this right? I make the point regarding public transport and connectivity to our airports. The western rail corridor represents a huge opportunity for connectivity to Knock Airport. However, we have been lacking in even basic things like getting the bus service from Galway to Shannon Airport. These are very basic things we need to get right to improve and to support our regional airports. There are several gaps and shortfalls in this legislation that need to be addressed, and the amendments are there, particularly in terms of the impact on infrastructure and the environment, which has not been evaluated. How will the Government mitigate the impact of flight paths? What will happen with night-time flights? There should be more extensive debate than just the two hours allocated. Going forward, I urge Government to finally start focusing on balanced regional development in aviation, and to do everything in its power to support regional airports right across the country.

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. The imposition of a passenger cap was ludicrous and never worked. It is quite unique in world aviation. The removal of it was always inevitable. On the eve of the last general election, I remember the main party leaders, both Government and Opposition, saying that this would have to happen, with various promises being made in the lead-up to voting day about how this would happen through legislation were they in government. I want to go through some of the concerns that I expressed at the committee. I am concerned about the imbalance of Dublin Airport in Irish aviation. In the past year, its market share of inbound and outbound traffic has been 86%. It is growing year on year. If one were to start all over again and plot out where there would be airports in Ireland, there would probably not be five airports down the western seaboard and just one on the east. There is an imbalance of where the airports are located and certainly an imbalance these days with respect to where the flights take off and land. I made a point at the Oireachtas transport committee, of which I have been a member in this Dáil and in the previous Dáil, that nearly all Government legislation and policy I have seen over the years makes a preamble reference to the national planning framework and to Project Ireland 2040, and references things at the very outset such as balanced regional development. I do not see that anywhere in this legislation. Although it is not in the spine of this legislation, I think there need to be addendums and a new national aviation strategy brought in in the autumn, because the current one is outdated and deals with a time, pre-pandemic, when aviation was going well. It has floundered since and recovered since. It has been up and down, boom and bust for aviation. The national aviation plan is not up to date. It does not reflect where aviation is at the moment. It does not reflect the current difficulties that airlines face with respect to fuel crises. It does not reflect the fact that, to this day, only 1% of cargo coming in and out of Ireland moves by air. There are many opportunities. I want to speak for a few moments about some of the opportunities for the other airports of Ireland that I think can be addressed. If they are not in this legislation, there are other ways in which this can be addressed. I acknowledge the Minister's inputs with regard to Shannon Airport. The Minister has included in the regional airports programme something that we have been advocating for a long time in the mid-west region. Shannon Airport had a very good year last year. It was its best year of the past 16 years. Passenger numbers were 2.3 million. There was 9% growth on the previous flying year. Things are going well there but there is a concern that, with the removal of the cap at Dublin Airport, it becomes somewhat open season and there will be a proliferation of flights to certain hub airports. If I can illustrate what imbalanced regional development looks like in the aviation realm, tomorrow, starting early in the morning and right up to about 9.30 p.m., 13 direct flights will depart from Dublin Airport heading to Amsterdam Schiphol, which is recognised as one of the principal and most important European airport hubs. I did not check but I presume an equal number return at various times during the day. Not a single flight from Shannon will go that way. We will have connectivity to Paris-Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt, but it is minuscule. Some of those flights have been pulled. I booked a trip to Paris for my family for a few days later this year. We were to fly out of Shannon. We got an email to say the flight was being moved to Dublin Airport. This is happening time and time again for people in the mid-west region. It is largely down to airlines trying to rationalise and pare back some of their costs for refuelling and so on, given the crisis that airlines face with overhead costs. It is not good enough because we want a service that operates out of our region. I make a conscious choice every time I book to fly from Shannon. It is a mantra we have. I am chairman of an all-party Oireachtas group that deals with Shannon Airport. While this House is often defined by division, argument and divergent views, I am glad to say that the 19 Members who sit on that, including TDs, Senators, and Ministers, from Clare, Limerick City, Limerick County, Galway East and Tipperary North work collegially. We meet in the airport boardroom. We meet with airport management, we deal with stakeholders and we try to represent the Shannon agenda in the Houses of the Oireachtas. The fact is that with Dublin's 84% to 86% market share - it varies year on year - the other national State airports are not being sweated fully. Without cutting a single blade of grass, without digging a new foundation or without laying a new concrete block, Shannon Airport has current capacity, without any changing of configurations, to double its passenger intake. Yet, this cap will allow Dublin to grow. It could put further pressure on the airports along the western seaboard. That would be a concern of ours. I made the point earlier about Project Ireland 2040 and the national planning framework. In nearly every Government decision, whether it is on the provision of healthcare, housing, water or sanitary services, there is usually a reference to balanced regional development and other hubs outside of the capital. There is not in this legislation. That is why I would like to see it brought forward in the autumn-winter period as part of a new aviation policy. It must speak more to the regions. When we undertook pre-legislative scrutiny at the Oireachtas committee, IDA Ireland come in. It very much supports the Minister's legislation but it too cautioned that there should be strong regional airport growth. It must run in parallel to all of this. Very often when legislation is brought before this House, the words "miscellaneous provisions" are added on at the end. There have been some major events in Irish aviation over the past four or five months while this legislation was evolving. I believe there was scope for those to be added in by way of miscellaneous provisions. Perhaps the Minister might bright other legislation before the House in due course. What I want to principally reference is not in this Bill passed tonight but should be of major concern to all who value air safety. A major wind farm application was submitted in County Clare by Ballycar Green Energy. The Irish Aviation Authority and AirNav Ireland were involved. It was unprecedented and I and other TDs raised this issue in the Dáil. They said that the erection of wind turbines in close proximity to a radar would distort the safe working of the radar. That ruling has been made. We now need to get to a point where Shannon Airport's and other airports' primary radar and secondary radar are protected by insisting that all wind energy zonings within a five- to eight-kilometre radius must be removed. It is not safe. It has been deemed that by the aviation regulator and by AirNav Ireland. It is wrong that our wind energy policy still aligns with something from ten years ago when people, who know about aviation safety, are now saying it is unsafe. That should have been included by way of a miscellaneous provision in this Bill and I hope it can be addressed in the autumn. The legislation is important and needs to pass. Our national airport cannot be stifled. We must allow passengers to choose where they want to fly from. We must allow free markets to function. There is an imbalance here, and there has been for many years, between Dublin Airport in our capital versus the other airports in the west of Ireland. The national aviation policy needs to address that. The regional airports programme could be bumped up further. We need to reflect on that example I gave that tomorrow, 13 flights will leave Dublin for Amsterdam Schiphol. Not a single one will be flying out from the west of Ireland. That is the type of balance that can be addressed. I suggested it at pre-legislative scrutiny. We could have inserted somewhere into this Bill a provision for slot management. Slot management typically only happens in airports where they are under huge pressure and the number of flights exceed what the airport is able to cater for. The Irish Aviation Authority and the Dublin Airport Authority would start managing slots. I would argue that at the moment, when any airline in the world applies to run a new service into Dublin, it is only viewed through the lens of approval or disapproval. That is the only thing. The Irish Aviation Authority, by statute, is only allowed to appraise it on a "Yes" or "No" basis. We could impose a regional development clause in that. If 13 flights are going to Schiphol, the Irish Aviation Authority should be saying it has exceeded what we probably need as a country and more should be given to the regions. That clause could have been in there and it should be in the new national aviation strategy.

I thank the ten Deputies who have contributed to the debate so far. I will deal with the specific amendments first and a few of the other points. Some Deputies, such as Deputy Coppinger - not to pick her out - could have a look at the Second Stage speech. I outlined a lot of what we were talking about this evening on Second Stage. I will make a comment before I speak directly to the amendment but it is related. I know everyone in this House has an earnest and a well-held view about this. I think all of us agree that Dublin Airport is an important strategic asset for this State. That is the first thing. I will deal with regional as well because our regional airports are critically important for this country. By the way, it is not just those within the Republic. Derry and Belfast airports are on this island and are critically important. I will turn to regional development and the national aviation policy, which I clearly referenced in the Second Stage contribution. If we take the airport as it operates right now, last year, 36.4 million passengers flew through Dublin Airport. A small percentage, approximately 1.7 million or so, transited through it. They are passenger numbers, not flights. That was said earlier on and I know Deputy Ahern probably misspoke on that. They were passenger numbers as opposed to flights. That is important too. The ratio of passengers to jobs is about 1 million to 1,000. For every 1 million passengers, there are about 1,000 direct jobs. We have approximately 30,000 plus workers directly on campus and about 130,000 total between direct and indirect. I am speaking to amendment No. 1 to section 2, which is Deputy Ahern's amendment. Others have come into the House in a less constructive way, such as Deputies Murphy and Coppinger and others. We would be having a debate here, and rightly so, as to why we lost 4,000 direct jobs in the airport and 10,000 to 15,000 indirect jobs if we continued to operate it as it is now and did not try to address what is a legacy issue. To be fair, many Deputies recognised that as a legacy issue. There is an economic imperative here but there is a balanced approach. There is the good neighbour policy that needs to be operated by DAA, the airport operator. I said that really clearly on Second Stage. I have grown up beside the airport. I represent an airport constituency. I know the benefits of living beside the airport by way of proximity. I know the challenges for members within my community and my constituency and other constituencies like Deputy O'Gorman's. That has to be done in a proper and appropriate way. I said clearly on Second Stage that this has not always been the case by the airport operators. On page 8 of the Bill, someone bemoaned the powers that may be given to the Minister. That might be a well-held view but it states, "The Minister may give a direction in writing to daa for any purpose relating to this Act, including, but not limited to-". I have said it clearly on a couple of things. I have written to the airport and intend for it to do things such as improving and expanding the noise insulation scheme. I do not think Deputy Coppinger knew about ANCA's decision at the time. That decision in relation to aircraft noise has been published for 14 weeks, which would have a significant bearing on the scale and the breadth of the noise insulation scheme. I have put it on the record of the House here and directly to the DAA that the voluntary purchase scheme needs to be improved upon. There are people who have sold their homes under that scheme. It needs to be improved further. There are people, particularly on the western side, right on the airport campus, whose homes I visited. For others to make any suggestion that I have not met residents' groups is simply untrue. Again, that charge was made by Deputies Murphy and Coppinger. It is not true. Formally, I have had three separate meetings with three groups over the course of the past 12 to 18 months, listening to them directly. I represent residents and constituents who work in the airport as well as those who have issues with noise. I meet them and engage with them all the time, so what they said is simply not true. There is a responsibility to balance sustainable growth at the airport, supporting the jobs in the airport and supporting the potential to grow further jobs and further routes. On flight paths, I said very clearly on Second Stage - not on foot of a proposal from anyone else but I welcome the main Opposition party looking at this - that an independent assessment of flight paths will happen. We need it to happen because, as Deputy O'Rourke said, there are people, including in north County Dublin, who saw applications made for certain flight paths that were granted and were not adhered to. I will not say too much because that was a matter for a retention application as well. When you plan forward, you have to try to be very clear with people. Yes, I want the airport to grow. I want the good jobs that are in the airport to be supported and I want the reality of ensuring that happens in a sustainable way. I think it was Deputy Farrelly who mentioned SHDs and going over the head of local authorities. I agree absolutely - that is why as housing Minister I got rid of SHDs - but this legislation specifically references that we are protecting the existing infrastructure application in there. We are not overriding the application that has still not been heard. I take the Deputy’s point and am not dismissing it at all but, in line with the legal advice we had, fundamentally the policy direction that I wanted was to protect that application that is there because it has gone through a number of iterations by way of public consultation right the way through. It is a complicated decision-making structure between the aircraft noise competent authority, ANCA, and Fingal County Council. I was in this Chamber in the Opposition debating this when it was the subject of a Bill in 2018. I actually supported the Bill but managed to get some changes to it - parts of it were a halfway house – and on foot of that we have commenced the review of where planning should sit for an airport into the future, as a strategic asset, how the noise authority interacts with the local authority and all those different things. There were people in the Fingal area at the time, as I am sure Deputy O’Gorman will know, who were not happy with ANCA sitting within Fingal County Council even though it is an independent organisation. There were people who had concerns about that. I commend ANCA on the work it does. It operates very well and has protected the independence it has had. I mention that because these were points that were made during debates, genuine concerns that may have been raised, that have not come to pass. That is not to dismiss any of the points that have been made here either, because this is just the first iteration of this. When I say it will protect the existing application, that application, if granted, would supersede any order I would make. Again, that is clearly set down in the legislation. If it is refused, my order stays in place. How do I make the order? This question has been raised by many TDs here, and especially Deputies Ahern and O’Gorman have raised it in relation to environmental considerations. It is clearly set out in the Bill. I will not be doing the assessments. The full environmental impact assessment will be done in line with an EIA directive, which will identify, describe and assess the direct and indirect significant effects of making an order on several factors including climate. That will be independently undertaken prior to the making of the order. An Coimisiún Pleanála will do that and I have set out a timeframe. Any charge that we are setting aside any environmental considerations is absolutely not true. I will not prejudice the outcome of that assessment, which I will consider fully before making an order. I have made it clear that even though international aviation emissions are outside the scope of the climate action plan, which is a fact, we are taking actions that are aligned with the global approach to decarbonisation in the aviation sector. That is the element in relation to this. We are not setting aside climate obligations, climate assessments or environmental impact assessments. That is not correct. We are protecting the original planning application. That is being done and I have said that very clearly. It does give the Minister of the day the power to seek an application from the DAA for further increases. I am glad Deputy Murphy is back. I referred to him earlier - not in a derogatory way, I might add - in relation to his comment that the Bill has been rushed or not considered. There were ten weeks of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is a planning condition going back to 2007 and 2008. It is something that has been kicked around for a long time and has never been dealt with. Those pre-legislative scrutiny hearings were open to any Deputy to go and make his or her case or point of view.

I was there.

Yes, Deputy O’Gorman was there. I was not saying he was not but I am saying there are others who have contributed here this evening who did not go to that committee to put forward their case. They are entitled to do it here this evening but I am just stating that. I did say, now that Deputy Murphy is here, that I have met residents. Deputy Coppinger made the charge the last time that I had not done so but I certainly have. On balanced regional development, national aviation policy has been rightly mentioned. Again, on Second Stage, I tried to be very clear on this. We have commenced work on the new national aviation policy, which is a commitment in the programme for Government. We will issue an issues paper on the new national aviation policy later this year. That will form the basis for stakeholder engagement and look at the balanced regional development of our airports. All our regional airports are growing and that is good. Cork Airport is growing. Deputy Pa Daly asked what was happening with Cork. There is a €200 million capital investment happening in Cork Airport. I visited it only a few weeks ago. It is a great airport with further potential to grow and I want to see that happen. I was at the 40th anniversary of Ireland West, where I met the team and saw the new infrastructure that is in place, fire services training, new stands and its development plan. Hopefully, Ireland West Airport Knock will hit 1 million passengers by the end of this year. Shannon is growing. It grew by 9% last year. It not only has really good plans in place but there is growth happening. I think there are 41 routes out of Shannon now, which is the highest number it has had in maybe 30 years. Donegal Airport is servicing the north west and we have managed to protect that airport with the PSO changes we made. The Dublin-Derry air route will open in October through PSO funding we secured through the shared island fund. Kerry Airport in Farranfore is continuing to grow. Commitment towards regional growth is why I have changed the regional airports policy to ensure that airports can grow up to 3 million and still receive support from the State to grow. I want to see them grow. There are really good jobs there. Connectivity is important for tourism and for our wider economy as well. If we were to stick to 32 million and a decision were made tomorrow that the cap currently in place would apply immediately such that we reduced the passenger numbers from 36.4 million to 32 million, we would be losing thousands of jobs in Dublin Airport. Deputy Coppinger would probably be the first to come here on that. She might not be the first but many Deputies would rightly come in here and ask what we were doing to support airport workers. What I am doing to support airport workers is making sure there are good jobs in the airport and making sure people can have good careers in the airport, not just in aviation itself and the airlines but in maintenance, repair and overhaul, MRO, leasing and all the other elements of the aviation sector in which Irish people are at the forefront right the way across the world. The airport has to grow in a sustainable way and it will. We are protecting the application that is before Fingal County Council. We have ensured that is the case with this legislation by specific reference to it. On future growth, the application right now would raise the cap to 40 million. The assessments that have been done will back up that 40 million. Any future growth would be based on an order that would be made. An application would be made to the Minister for a further increase if that was required in the future but you cannot just grow the airport and passenger numbers without having the infrastructure in place. That is why you need the new stands at the airport and all the various things that underpin the growth of the aviation sector and, indeed, Dublin Airport. To respond to Deputy Ahern, I was not being facetious the last day and I will not be facetious now either. It is very clear what international connectivity is and that is why I am not accepting either of the amendments he tabled. I have also clearly covered our obligations with regard to environmental impact assessments and how they will be assessed through An Coimisiún Pleanála, so I do not intend to accept amendment No. 13 either. I think I have covered most of what was there, but I assure people that residents and those living in proximity are at the forefront of my mind in ensuring the airport can grow in a balanced way on the basis that it operates as a good neighbour, which it has not always done. I have reiterated my commitment to ensuring an independent assessment of flight paths. That will happen. We will continue to support and grow the jobs at Dublin Airport and everything else that relates to the other, indirect jobs that flow from smaller and larger Irish companies thousands of people derive their income from. That is an important consideration, I would say, and should be for everyone in this Chamber.

I thank the Minister for his comments and for listening so attentively to what people were saying. On my amendment, the issue I have is how much connectivity is ever going to be enough. We still do not have an answer on that. He mentioned a figure of 40 million passengers being the first application.

That is the one in with Fingal now.

The Minister's assumption is that will be the first application. There is no guarantee anywhere here, however, that it is going to be a 40 million cap. There is presumably nothing preventing the DAA from applying for a higher figure. However, that is the Minister's understanding and that is fair enough. Our issue is that there are no limits anywhere in this Bill. There are no parameters for the number of passengers who will be coming through the airport. No real economic assessment has been done here. The Minister stated that there are 1,000 jobs attached to every 1 million passengers, and I ask where he got that figure from and whether it is a figure given to him by the airline industry. At least when it came to the expansion of data centres in this country and the Government's policy on that, it commissioned a report we could scrutinise. The Government acknowledged the need to back up the claims about jobs related to data centres with some hard data. Now, the data is questionable but at least it was put out there by the Government. We have not seen any of that for the claims being made about jobs and the international connectivity of Dublin Airport. Do not get me wrong, we value Dublin Airport. We completely understand that it is a strategic national asset. Part of our concern here relates to balanced regional development. It relates back to what Deputy Crowe was speaking about where flights from Shannon are being run from Dublin rather than Shannon. Will this policy now give rise to Dublin swallowing up everything else? Is international connectivity just a byword for a policy from large international airlines that want to use Dublin Airport as a hub and create an even bigger hub out of Dublin that will not necessarily serve Irish people or passengers but is going to serve these international airlines and passengers who are connecting here to move abroad? I have serious questions about that as well. As a lawyer, I like definitions. Again, as Deputy Whitmore alluded to, we need some metrics to hold the Minister to account. There are emissions connected to every new additional flight that is going to come from Dublin Airport, and we want to have some accountability here. Huge power is being put in the Minister's hands in this Bill, and we want to put some guardrails and parameters around that. Unfortunately, he is determined to dismantle some of the climate guardrails the previous Government put in place through the disapplication of section 15 of the climate Act. The Minister also mentioned that he is not setting aside climate considerations. There are other amendments that relate to this and some of his powers under the Bill. Those powers are contained in section 25 of the Bill, and they are his powers to make an order. I bring this up because the Minister raised it and said he has to consider any conditions that An Coimisiún Pleanála sends to him. That is all true. A process is set out here whereby An Coimisiún Pleanála does an environmental impact assessment, and it can make recommendations and put conditions down that they send to him as a Minister. Under section 25(3), he can decide to include that condition in an order he makes. He can unilaterally decide to vary that condition or he can refuse to include that condition in an order that he makes. That is a massive power for him to simply take as advisory anything that An Coimisiún Pleanála says. I do not accept that he is not setting aside climate considerations here. It is up to him or a future Minister for Transport to say sod whatever An Coimisiún Pleanála said and sod the climate because they will have an explicit power to ignore all of that, and to decide that is what they are going to do. That is a massive flaw in this Bill. If it is the Minister's position that he wants to take climate considerations seriously into account when it comes to our aviation policy, this section 25(3)(c) is a massive problem. We do not have any answers from the Minister on where the savings will come from to counteract the additional emissions coming from Dublin Airport when this airport cap is lifted. We are lifting the Dublin Airport cap, and we still have no other cap. We still have no climate action plan, and we desperately want to see that from the Minister as soon as possible. Emissions from air travel are massive. I do not know if we all consider just how polluting our flights are. To put this in context, the Minister and certainly the electoral nerds among us will have seen last week that the Electoral Commission produced a report about the Irish obsession with posters during election campaigns. It estimated that the carbon emissions for all the posters used in the general election in 2024 had the equivalent of just two return transatlantic flights. That report interestingly said that Irish people hate posters and want to do away with them. If we did do away with election posters, it would simply have the same environmental impact as two full transatlantic flights. We are seriously increasing our carbon emissions here. There is a world in which I can support something like this, but we would need to see where the limits and the guardrails are, and where in the transport sector or elsewhere those savings will come from so we can comply with our legally binding carbon budgets and our international obligations.

I thank the Minister for his response. I want to come back briefly on two elements. The Minister has said that in advancing this legislation he is not setting aside our climate obligations. Just so it is on the record of the House, section 39 of the Bill is a modification of the application of section 15 of Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. It is worth looking at what that actually does. Section 39 states: The Minister and [An Coimisiún Pleanála], in performing their functions under this Act, shall not be subject to the requirements referred to in section 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, having regard to the likely consequences for the economy of the State and for international connectivity if an order is not made by the Minister under section 25(1). The Minister and the commission are not subject to the requirements under section 15(1) of the climate Act. What are those requirements? There are five requirements set out in law. They are that a relevant body shall, insofar as it is practicable, perform its functions in a manner consistent with the most recently approved climate action plan, the most recently approved long-term climate action strategy, the most recently approved national adaptation framework and approved sectoral adaptation plan, the furtherance of the national climate objective and the objective of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State. The word "literally" is overused, but the Minister is literally disapplying climate obligations by means of this particular Bill. Section 39 literally states that, so can we just move away from this idea that the Minister is not doing so. He is, because it says he is in section 39. It is everything from the annual - or what used to be the annual - climate action plans all the way up to the important national climate objective that the State has and that is the centrepiece of the climate action Act, as amended. These are being disapplied when it comes to the crucial decision on lifting the airport cap. They has been disapplied in other areas as well, including in the legislation on the decision relating to LNG that we dealt with earlier. They will possibly be disapplied in relation to many decisions coming through in respect of the critical infrastructure Bill. In some places, what is happening is actually going to make pro-climate critical infrastructure harder to defend in court. I raised that point already. Let us be very clear: the Bill is literally disapplying our climate obligations. That is the purpose of section 39. I wish to comment on the point about the engagement with the process. The Minister mentioned the pre-legislative scrutiny process, which was lengthy. We got to hear in detail the impact of noise on residents and the attempt by certain US CEOs to bully us into making this particular change. We are looking at the detailed legislation at this point. When the ANCA legislation was going through, the Minister made the point that, following engagement with one of his ministerial colleagues, he was able to secure some amendments and improvements.

The Deputy can table amendments.

We cannot do that tonight because we have not even had the opportunity to go through good amendments or to address some of the points in detail. After Committee Stage, most fair-minded Ministers would at least look at what the Opposition has said and make some changes or improvements. We do not have that opportunity here. I have a good amendment for the Minister. It is amendment No. 14. He recognised the work ANCA has done and the fact that it recently published a decision. Let us give that decision some teeth. Let us recognise the noise abatement objective for Dublin Airport in this legislation. Let us recognise that it is one of the considerations that An Coimisiún Pleanála should use in the context of the recommendation it will make and in respect of which the Minister will ultimately make a decision. There are good amendments here. We just do not have the time to tease them out and, perhaps, bring forward other amendments. That is the process. We are helpless in terms of that now. There are good amendments here, and some of them should be accepted.

I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive response to the many points made. As Deputy O'Gorman said, we have to be accurate in what we say. This legislation is exempt from section 15 of the climate action Act. It is of critical importance to acknowledge that in the first instance. Otherwise, we are beating around the bush and being quite disingenuous. Speaking of being disingenuous, we should not be dangling the prospect of 4,000 jobs being impacted during the debate on legislation of this nature. I do not think it is accurate to speak about this matter in that context. The Minister has insight from meeting with the DAA and everybody else involved, but, given the tight timeframe, to make a threat of that nature in respect of legislation does not help. I listened with real interest to a DAA spokesperson commenting on balanced regional development and the importance of other regional airports. He said that airlines simply do not want to use the other airports and that is why the passenger cap needs to go. In that context, I reiterate the point I made in my initial contribution. This is legislation and the policy behind it are being driven by the market. The cost of that is yet to be determined. The Minister reverted to me about the SHD legislation and how it differs from this Bill. On the face of it, however, it is undemocratic to bypass the local authority in the first instance. The Minister referred to the strategic importance of this piece of infrastructure. When he was a councillor - I was also a councillor in Kildare - he would not have been impressed by the idea that the local authority of which he was a member, in the context of the important function it plays in respect of the planning process, would be bypassed. I have a very fond memory of a colleague of the Minister's who served with me on Kildare County Council declaring a climate emergency. He put down a motion at a meeting of Kildare County Council, banged on the table and stated that we were in a climate emergency and living in that dystopian future that we were told to worry about when it came to severe weather events. That colleague of the Minister is now going to vote in favour of legislation, the consequences of which we simply cannot know because no calculation has been carried out. There is no sense from a numbers perspective what impact this legislation will have. The Minister cannot rebut that because it is factually correct. We have not done the assessment. We have not done the holistic calculation of just how damaging this will be. There was a situation in Kildare about a month ago whereby the ESB threatened that it was going to flood one community because of excess water in the River Liffey. At the same time, another community 3 km or 4 km away had no water. That is testament to the ever-worsening and ever-more-extreme climate events our country faces and to our place in this world. It pains me when colleagues declare that we are in a climate emergency at local authority meetings and then the Government bypasses local authorities with its decision-making structures. I wonder what will happen next. What other ministerial powers are going to come about? When we are talking about nuclear energy or other important projects, will it be okay to be undemocratic and not to put these through the formal planning process because of their strategic importance? I am worried. If we get that precedent wrong, it will be the start of a very worrying trend.

I want to press my amendment.

Am I allowed to respond?

Not really. If the Deputy is pressing the amendment, that is his prerogative. It is his amendment.

I move amendment No. 2: 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.”. This amendment seeks that the Minister should within 12 months following commencement, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report reviewing DAA's compliance with the directions of the Minister because, as we all know, there is a lack of trust in the north County Dublin area in what the DAA has done.

This amendment proposes that I lay a report before the Houses in relation to the DAA's compliance with any direction I give it under the Bill. I think this provision is unnecessary. Under the Bill, the DAA is required to comply with a direction that I issue. Typically, this will relate to the provision of reports to allow the environmental assessments to be undertaken. If that information is not provided and the assessments cannot be undertaken, no order can be made. As such, it is in the interest of the DAA to comply with a direction I issue. I do not envisage a scenario where the DAA does not comply with a direction I give, so reporting on compliance will be unnecessary. In addition, it is open to Deputies to seek information by way of parliamentary questions. I again refer the Deputy to the powers of a Minister to give directions to the DAA. That will not be confined. We have discussed at length here too the importance of the DAA being a good neighbour. I think this has improved in the short term but it needs to improve further. In relation to things like flight paths, I have made this very clear. We are going to have an independent assessment of it. Additionally, as was referenced earlier in relation to flights, and the decision, in particular, that ANCA has issued for a 14-week public consultation, I encourage people to engage with it. It is a good piece of work and will feed into the planning application for 40 million passengers currently with Fingal County Council. That is why I was at pains to say earlier that we protect that current application because communities, individuals and other stakeholders have engaged directly with it. It would not be appropriate to set that aside, nor am I actually suggesting that happen. Furthermore, I have actually specifically protected it, and it is referred to in this legislation. In that instance, I am not going to accept this amendment for the reasons I put forward.

How could the Minister not accept such an amendment? It is as plain as anything that there should be some obligation on the DAA to review how it works. We only have a minute or so left. I have two very quick things. One concerns a resident who sent this communication last week. I was making the point about the DAA and insulation. This person said that as they typed the message in their back garden, planes were flying directly overhead, every window in the house was open and their four kids under seven were in bed. This person added that their house has not been noise-insulated by the DAA and wanted us to know that the existing insulation scheme has not installed a single air conditioning system for affected residents in order to remove the necessity to open windows during the hottest and loudest months. The message continued by saying the scheme is not fit for purpose and that it is grossly unfair that the costs of expansion and of the airlines doing business are being borne by local residents. Unfortunately, that is the reality. During the hottest months, the flights are the worst. I also want to ask the Minister about having said earlier that he had met residents.

I have.

I just checked, and residents in the St. Margaret's The Ward Residents Group have asked to meet the Minister in relation to their Planning for Real proposal.

I have met them.

They said the Minister has not met them since before last summer, so we have two conflicting statements then. I have to believe the residents. They have now gone to court because they have not been able to meet the Minister. I also want to say something else because the Minister has used the issue of jobs to justify this. Nobody is saying that any jobs should be lost. This is actually about expanding the airport. We actually cannot have unlimited growth all the time. We have to take into account the impact on the environment and climate change and on local residents too. To talk about job losses is just really out of order in that sense. We are very rushed again. We are not going to get to some of the other very important amendments that have been tabled. The Minister needs to meet the residents. If he is saying he has met them, then he should agree to meet them. I definitely do believe we should call a vote on this Bill. It is an extremely important one.

The time permitted for this debate having expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That 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 passed."