2026-06-23

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am pleased to introduce the Dublin Airport (Passenger Capacity) Bill 2026 for the consideration of the House. The main purpose of this Bill is to address the passenger cap planning condition at Dublin Airport. The importance of addressing the passenger cap and its effects on Dublin Airport is recognised clearly in the programme for Government, which includes a clear commitment to work with stakeholders to achieve the objective of lifting the passenger cap at Dublin Airport as soon as possible. I have met with a wide variety of stakeholders over the past 18 months, including local residents, airlines, business groups and industry regulators in relation to the passenger cap planning condition. The general scheme of the Bill has also been scrutinised by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, which received a considerable number of submissions from a wide range of stakeholders. The committee held several hearings to ensure that the views of all interested parties were heard, and I have taken on board the recommendations of the committee insofar as possible in finalising the text of the Bill. In drafting this legislative intervention, I have taken the views of all of these stakeholders into account. I have also obtained extensive legal advice throughout the drafting of the legislation, and I am satisfied that what I am presenting will allow for the continued sustainable development of Dublin Airport, while balancing the rights of local residents with the objectives of Ireland's national aviation policy and the needs of business and tourism. I think we can all agree that, as an island nation, Dublin Airport is of strategic importance to this country. Over 36 million passengers travelled through Dublin Airport in 2025. As such, there are a number of recognised risks around the passenger cap planning condition remaining in place. First, if enforced, it would result in an immediate cut of over 4 million passengers per annum, impacting on existing connectivity and employment at the airport and in the wider aviation sector. Second, it would stifle continued growth, undermine our ambitious hub strategy for the airport and negatively impact on our economy in terms of business, trade and tourism. It will also very negatively impact on the jobs the airport underpins. There are about 130,000 direct and indirect jobs in Dublin Airport. Airlines need certainty to plan future schedules and the continued existence of the cap creates only uncertainty, which can be expected to continue to affect the choices that airlines will make about serving the Dublin Airport. Finally, the reputational damage for Ireland could be impacted if capacity is restricted at our main international gateway. The 32 million passenger cap is a planning condition that was imposed by An Coimisiún Pleanála, then known as An Bord Pleanála, when granting permission for terminal 2 in 2007 and extension works at terminal 1 in 2008. The condition was put in place primarily to address surface access constraints at the time. However, there have been significant upgrades of local road access and public transport offerings to and from the airport since then. It is also very significant, as Members will know, that we have a full, clean planning permission for MetroLink, on which construction will start next year. DAA has statutory responsibility for the management, operation and development of Dublin Airport and it is its responsibility to engage with the relevant planning authorities to ensure that planning permission is in place to facilitate the development of the airport. DAA submitted its infrastructure application to the relevant planning authority, Fingal County Council, in December 2023, seeking to increase the passenger cap to 40 million passengers per annum and seeking permission, importantly, for the development of a suite of infrastructure projects at the airport to facilitate growth. This planning application is currently under consideration by Fingal County Council. As part of the process in place for development at the airport since the enactment of the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019, a draft noise-related regulatory decision was published by the Aircraft Noise Competent Authority, ANCA, last month and is currently subject to a public consultation for a period of 14 weeks. A final regulatory decision in relation to the noise aspect of this planning application is expected after that period ends. This decision will be incorporated in the planning decision by Fingal County Council, which is expected shortly thereafter. It is, however, likely that any planning decision by Fingal County Council may then be appealed to An Coimisiún Pleanála and may also be subject to judicial review. This further highlights the need to address the passenger cap by way of a legislative solution to ensure clarity for all stakeholders and to ensure that connectivity to and from our country is not undermined. I will now take colleagues through the main provisions of the Bill that will empower me, as the Minister for Transport, to make an order to amend or revoke the passenger cap planning condition. In Part 1, the first thing I draw attention to is the definition of "passenger capacity condition" under section 2 of the Bill. This definition makes it clear that the power to make an order relates solely to a planning condition that limits the number of passengers who use Dublin Airport for the purpose of travelling by air to or from another airport in any period. I know there were concerns raised during pre-legislative scrutiny that the power being provided to amend any planning condition in the general scheme was too broad, and that has been addressed. Under section 6 of this Part, I have a general power of direction to DAA for any purpose related to this Bill. I may use this power to procure information from DAA in relation to an application, ensure the preparation and submission of appropriate reports relating to the environmental assessments or initiate the application process, which is a very important provision. In such directions, I may specify the period and form in which information should be provided. DAA has a legal obligation to comply with such a direction. Part 2 provides that DAA may make an application for the making of an order under the legislation. That application from DAA will propose the manner in which the passenger cap is to be amended or revoked, reasons for the application and a summary of the environmental impacts. I will consider the application and consult any person I consider appropriate. If I am satisfied there is justification to make an order, I will notify DAA of my intention to do so and direct it to prepare an environmental impact assessment report and a Natura impact statement. I have the power to accept, vary or refuse an application from DAA. Part 3, covering sections 8 to 23, inclusive, provides for the environmental impact assessment and appropriate assessment that will be undertaken independently of me, as Minister. An Coimisiún Pleanála will carry out the assessments under the habitats directive and the environmental impact assessment directive, which will include consideration of compliance with the water framework directive. As part of these assessments, the commission will publish the material for the assessments and undertake a public consultation for a period of no longer than 30 days. There is provision, though, for a further 30-day public consultation should the commission seek and receive further information that is substantial in nature. I have included strict timelines within the legislation, and the commission will have 20 weeks to carry out the assessments and come to a reasoned conclusion in relation to the environmental impacts of making an order and a determination as to whether there will be an impact on the surrounding habitats. There is the ability to pause this timeline for a period of four weeks to allow for any requests for further information to be dealt with. The commission is encouraged, insofar as possible, to carry out these assessments jointly and to take all necessary steps to work in an expeditious manner, avoid any undue delays and ensure that appropriate resources are allocated to carry out its functions under the legislation within the timeframe provided. The commission will notify me of its findings arising from the environmental assessments and publish its reasoned conclusion and determination. Part 4 sets out the parameters around the making of the order by me and that an order will be superseded by a planning decision on the DAA's infrastructure application. Under section 24, I am prohibited from making an order until the environmental assessments have been carried out. I believe that provision addresses some concerns raised during pre-legislative scrutiny about the public being excluded from the process. This is not the case. At least one period of public consultation in relation to the environmental impacts of making an order will take place. Under section 25, I am empowered to make an order to amend or revoke the passenger cap, where I am of the opinion that the passenger cap is causing harm to the economy of the State, international connectivity and Ireland's reputation in respect of air transport. In making an order, I will consider and take account of the outcomes of the environmental assessments undertaken by the commission, and I have the power to include any conditions in an order that I deem appropriate to mitigate any impact on the environment. In consultation with the Minister for housing, where appropriate, I can deem the conditions attached to an order as exempted development but only where they are not separately subject to environmental assessments under EU law. I will publish an order on my Department’s website and in Iris Oifigiúil and inform Fingal County Council, which is the relevant planning authority. While it is critical that we deal with the passenger cap planning condition, it would be meaningless to do so if we did not have the infrastructure to accommodate that future growth. Therefore, in the preparation of this legislation, one of the key objectives was to protect DAA's live planning application. As such, the legislation I bring before the House today was crafted to allow that application to proceed through the planning process, notwithstanding the making of an order. Section 26 sets out the effect of an order as it relates to that planning application given that both deal with the same planning condition, namely, the 32 million passenger cap. In short, once a final decision is made in relation to DAA's infrastructure application, that decision will supersede any order made under this legislation in this particular application. However, an order will remain in place through any appeal or judicial review, JR, of that planning decision and if that planning application is refused, then the order will also remain in effect. This will ensure consistency and certainty for all stakeholders while DAA's planning application proceeds to a final planning decision. I believe this also addresses a recommendation, which, again, arose from the committee, for a sunset clause to be introduced. Part 5, which covers sections 27 to 35, inclusive, sets out the judicial review procedures. The validity of an order made under the legislation, or an alleged failure to carry out a function under the legislation, may only be challenged by way of judicial review. An application for leave to apply for a JR must be taken within eight weeks and the applicant must have sufficient interest in the matter. Part 6 provides for amendments to the Planning and Developments Acts. Under these amendments, Fingal County Council and An Coimisiún Pleanála are prevented from imposing a passenger cap as a condition in future planning decisions related to Dublin Airport. However, this does not apply in the case of the condition being imposed following a noise assessment by the noise regulator, ANCA, under the balanced approach and it does not apply, in this instance specifically, to the DAA's live infrastructure application. This Part also provides for amendments to the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019. The definition of operating restriction has been amended to align with EU regulations on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at European Union airports within the balanced approach. Two transitional provisions that are no longer relevant have been deleted and a provision has been inserted to clarify that the 32 million passenger cap is not an operating restriction within the meaning of the 2019 Act. Section 39 provides a derogation from section 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. I want to explain a couple of reasons this is the case. First, the passenger cap was not a targeted climate measure and, second, international aviation emissions are excluded from the climate action plan. As such, this provides clarity as to the application of that Act to the actions that are under this specific legislation. As I mentioned, we are an island nation and we cannot ignore the strategic importance of Dublin Airport to our economy and the serious harm that would be caused to the economy, our people, our international connectivity and the international reputation of the State by failing to be in a position to facilitate not only future growth, but the current level of passengers and cargo at our main international gateway. The legislation I am proposing will not only allow us to ensure the sustainable development of the airport, but will also ensure that any environmental impacts will be independently assessed and the views of the public will be heard as part of that process. As such, it is my view that the approach set out in the legislation represents the most balanced and reasonable way forward. We are dealing here with a legacy issue. The Dublin Airport passenger cap does not serve this State or the people of the region well. I want the airport to grow on a sustainable basis and to operate as a good neighbour. I grew up beside the airport and have lived in the area my whole life. I know that tens of thousands of people derive income and good salaries from Dublin Airport. It is a critical part of infrastructure in this country and critical to our international connectivity. We have tens of thousands of people working there who not only derive an income there, as I said, but are at the leading edge of aviation, not just in Ireland but across Europe and the globe. This legislation is critical to ensuring we can grow Dublin Airport in a sustainable manner. It ensures and enshrines public consultation within it but sets strict timelines in that regard. We have also ensured that the existing planning application that is with Fingal County Council is fully protected. There is a process within this as well, in that the Bill gives the Minister of the day the power to preclude the imposition of further caps but also to seek applications from the Dublin Airport authority in this instance to raise the cap further in that regard. I am looking forward to the debate and the input from Members from across the House. I thank the members of the joint committee under the chairpersonship of Deputy Michael Murphy for the work they have done in this regard. We have reflected many of the recommendations from the pre-legislative scrutiny and the committee's report in the Bill. This Bill is of strategic importance. It is urgent that it be passed. For this reason, I thank the House for its consideration of Second Stage today. I look forward to moving the legislation to its conclusion next week.

As an island nation, our connectivity is obviously not optional. Our economy, tourism sector, diaspora connections and ability to attract investment all depend on Ireland's connectivity. It is the lynchpin for hundreds of thousands of jobs. There can, therefore, be no question than an ambitious, forward-looking aviation strategy is essential. As Ireland's primary international gateway and a critical piece of infrastructure, Dublin Airport is fundamental. Right now, the passenger cap is being constrained by a rule that no longer makes sense. The cap is outdated and out of step with reality. Some 36 million passengers passed through Dublin Airport despite the cap being set at 32 million. A difference of 4 million between the two is not a rounding error; it is proof that something has not been working. We in Sinn Féin believe the Dublin Airport passenger cap should be lifted but we are not here just to rubberstamp the legislation. While the cap must be lifted in order that we allow for progress, that does not mean the Government's approach should be given carte blanche. First, the aviation strategy must move beyond the city and county of Dublin. Rather than being treated as an afterthought, the Government must recognise that regional airports are key to unlocking Ireland's potential and to delivering balanced regional development. Therefore, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael must move beyond their current narrow focus on Dublin and expand their horizons, supported by whatever Independent TDs are still currently supporting Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. From Kerry to Cork, Shannon, Knock, Waterford, Donegal, Belfast, Derry and beyond, Ireland's regional airports are awash with unlocked potential. The Bill must engage with the fact that local communities have felt ignored and overlooked for years. Proper community consultation does not mean preventing progress. When it is done properly, it can enhance it. The Bill presents an opportunity to make the Minister and DAA do a better job. There are amendments that Sinn Féin will be proposing because the outdated airport cap is holding Ireland back. The original 32 million cap, as the Minister said, was introduced as a planning condition at the time of the planning permission for terminal 2. As he said, it was primarily to address the surface access constraints at the time. It was rooted in very specific concerns about traffic congestion and local impacts but the world has moved on. Passenger demand has outgrown the cap and the cap itself has become blunt and outdated. The infrastructure around the airport has changed since 2007. It is now creating uncertainty, not only for the airport authority but for airlines, workers, the wider economy and the stakeholders the Minister mentioned in his opening speech. There are ongoing legal challenges and looming regulatory decisions at European level that could force stricter enforcement of the cap if it remained in place and we could potentially see reduced flight slots or curtailed capacity and possible damage to tourism, trade and jobs. Legal and regulatory chaos could result from it. That is not a risk we should take. Industry stakeholders have been quite clear that the cap was limiting growth and restricting connectivity, particularly on key transatlantic routes, and creating uncertainty that could undermine Ireland's competitiveness. Nowhere is this more true than the tourism sector, which is so important in my county of Kerry. Tourism supports almost 230,000 jobs across the country which is nearly one in ten jobs. These are jobs in every county, in rural communities as well as cities. Many of them are in sectors where workers are already under pressure. The sector is facing real challenges. In 2025, international trips declined and visitor spending fell. That is a warning sign we cannot ignore. Connectivity is also critical to reversing that trend. Without sufficient capacity at Dublin Airport, we risk losing visitors to other destinations. However, growth and tourism must also be fair and balanced. Sinn Féin has consistently argued for a tourism strategy that delivers shared prosperity and supports communities right across the island, not just the stakeholders who are involved here. That means linking aviation policy to regional development, sustainability and decent working conditions for those who are employed in the sector. The Government cannot claim to support workers while failing to ensure the benefits reach them by delaying the living wage and leaving low-paid workers carrying the burden. It is about more than just lifting the cap. It is about ensuring that lifting the barrier to Dublin Airport's capacity means Ireland's true aviation potential is achieved in a fair and regionally balanced way. It is not just about lifting the cap and the problem is solved as nothing could be further from the truth. Lifting Dublin Airport's cap while continuing to ignore the potential of the regional airports will never produce the answer that Ireland needs and will continue to leave large parts of our island behind. Despite what the Government thinks, not all runways lead to Dublin. This Bill presents us with an opportunity to address one of the significant failings of the Government; its lack of ambition when it comes to regional aviation. At present, Dublin Airport handles the overwhelming majority of passenger traffic at about 88%. By contrast, Cork Airport accounts for about 6% and others even less. That imbalance is not inevitable. It is the result of policy choices. The over-concentration is not strategy and it is holding back certain parts of the country. Regional airports have enormous potential to drive economic growth, support tourism and create jobs but they are not being given the tools or investment they need. Funding for regional airports remains limited, fragmented and overly focused on maintaining basic operations, rather than enabling growth and expansion. Spread over years and across multiple airports, the sums allocated are not sufficient to transform connectivity or attract new routes. The result is a system that underperforms and leaves regional economies and airports, such as Kerry Airport, at a disadvantage. We need a fundamentally different approach that recognises the role of regional airports as engines of development and not afterthoughts. We need strategic investment and infrastructure, support for route development and airline partnerships, integration with wider transport networks and a clear, long-term vision for balanced aviation growth. We cannot continue with the model where Dublin expands without a strategy for the rest of the country. Ultimately, there has been an incoherent aviation strategy, no long-term plan for Dublin Airport, no serious roadmap for regional airports and, importantly, no all-island approach to connectivity. That is not good enough for a modern economy. As part of its focus on regional airports, the Government needs to see beyond the partitionist approach. Ireland is a small island economy and our connectivity challenges do not stop at the border. An all-island approach to aviation offers real opportunities for tourism, trade and regional balance. We saw how fragile our transport links were when disruptions hit key routes and yet the Government refuses to think holistically about how people and goods move on and off this island. There is a clear need for resilience and co-ordination across the island. The Bill should be seen in that broader context; not just as a measure for Dublin Airport but as a wider strategy for connectivity across the island. Lifting the cap also requires the addressing of the very real concerns of communities that live around Dublin Airport. For too long, local voices have not been heard in a meaningful way. Residents have raised serious issues but they continue to be rebuffed and ignored. We will be bringing forward amendments that should give the Government the opportunity to take the concerns of the residents into consideration, which have not been heard in a meaningful way. There are also outstanding issues around flight paths, planning compliance and infrastructure commitments that were originally tied to the passenger cap. Many of these commitments, including road improvements, have not been fully delivered. We are now being asked to support legislation that will override planning conditions that exist without adequately addressing the failures. If we are to lift the cap, we must also strengthen protections for local communities. The final key issue I will address is the scope of ministerial powers. The legislation gives the Minister significant authority to amend or revoke the passenger cap. While that may be necessary, it must be clearly defined, transparent and limited in scope. I see what the Minister has said about the power to make the order relating solely to a planning condition limiting the number of passengers who use Dublin Airport. That needs to be stated clearly. There is also concern and it must not extend beyond the passenger cap to other planning conditions. There are questions about oversight, accountability and the role of existing regulatory bodies. We need to ensure the powers granted are proportionate, clearly defined and subject to appropriate safeguards. The cap must go. We know it is outdated. We know it is damaging. However, lifting that is not alone a solution. If the Government thinks it can bulldoze this legislation through without fixing other underlying issues, it is mistaken because it is about protecting communities, supporting workers, delivering regional development and building a real aviation strategy for the future of island. Get that right and this Bill can work. If we get it wrong, we will be back here again dealing with the consequences of short-term thinking and missed opportunities. We will engage and we will propose solutions to work with.

This legislation on the passenger cap must strike the right balance between ensuring our island's connectivity while also acknowledging the experiences and voices of local residents who live close to the airport. The €32 million annual passenger cap has been in place for many years now. However, in this time, passenger demand has far outgrown this limit and the cap has caused significant regulatory uncertainty for the aviation sector. Sinn Féin supports the abolition of the cap but we believe this should be done in a measured way which provides the opportunity for local residents to meaningfully engage in the future of the airport, especially in terms of the regulation of noise levels and flight paths. As Deputy Daly outlined, we have significant concerns surrounding the powers this Bill proposes to give to the Minister. We will be submitting a number of amendments across the many sections of this Bill. While lifting the passenger cap for Dublin Airport is critical to our island's connectivity, the Government must place just as much energy into developing our regional airports. Airports such as those at Shannon and Knock provide a fantastic service, especially for people who live in the west of Ireland, and are key economic and tourism drivers for our region. These airports have seen passenger growth over the last number of years but the reality is that the lion's share of traffic continues to be processed through Dublin, with well over 80% of the State's air-passenger traffic being processed there. Increasing the use of airports like Shannon and Knock would reduce the level of traffic at Dublin Airport while also supporting greater growth opportunities across the west. Developing and promoting the use of our regional airports is an essential tool to deliver economic growth to every corner of this island and to promote balanced regional development. However, investment from Government must be there to deliver on this. This includes investment in the likes of reliable public transport links, both bus and rail, to airports like Shannon and Knock, which is a recommendation from the all-island rail review, so that people can make the switch to using these airports. In particular, the full reopening of the western rail corridor would provide a significant opportunity to improve connectivity to Knock Airport. I also raise that it has been over ten years since the national aviation policy was published. From parliamentary questions I have submitted, there is still no sign of when the much-promised updated policy will be delivered. Without an overarching national aviation policy that reflects the developments in aviation, how can we have confidence in the Government's approach to aviation development, especially for our regional airports, which I have outlined? We have waited quite a while for this legislation but there are still significant gaps and shortfalls that need to be addressed. This legislation must be used as an opportunity to ensure the residents who live near Dublin Airport are engaged with in a meaningful way and to ensure the DAA is not given carte blanche to do what it wants. The work surrounding this legislation must also be used as an opportunity to encourage the use of our regional airports. We need to see an updated national aviation policy delivered as a matter of urgency, and we will be submitting a number of amendments to this legislation. These amendments will be an opportunity for the Minister and Government to ensure this legislation is fit for the transport needs of the whole island.

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution this afternoon. I thank Deputies Daly and O'Hara for their work on this legislation and for their continued work in this area. I also commend the residents' groups, including the St. Margaret’s The Ward group and other groups that represent the people who are living in the environs of Dublin Airport. I wish to address two issues the Minister raised in his remarks and I hope he will be able to come back to them in his concluding remarks. I will try to get back in if I can to hear these, but I will look back on the recording in any event. The Minister referenced the programme for Government including "a clear commitment to work with stakeholders to achieve the objective of lifting the passenger cap". Will he outline, in terms of the residents, how that commitment will be achieved? He also told us that what he is presenting here today will allow for the continued sustainable development of Dublin Airport while balancing the rights of local residents. Will the Minister outline for me what the rights of local residents are exactly and how that balance will be achieved? The Minister will know, having represented this area for a long time - I have represented them for ten years myself - that sometimes the residents who live in the environs of the airport do not feel like they have been listened to or that their concerns have been taken on board. As the Minister will know, all they want is for the airport to be a good neighbour. They feel that they are good neighbours and they want the airport to be a good neighbour. However, when your neighbour is as big and noisy as Dublin Airport is, it is sometimes very difficult to see and feel that it is being a good neighbour. The residents want to be treated fairly, which is not unreasonable. Many of the people who live in the environs of the airport do not want to relocate but, if they have to do so, they want to be able to get a settlement from the voluntary dwelling purchase scheme that will enable them to move on with their lives while maintaining as much as possible what they have in terms of their family, etc. There are people who live near the airport who are there for generations. The airport grew up around them. They were there first. The Minister will know these people well. If they are forced to relocate and cannot remain where they are, they want a decent settlement so that they can rebuild their lives elsewhere. I am also conscious of those people who are employed in the airport. Again, many of them are constituents of mine. I know how important the airport is as an employer and also as a driver of business. More can be done in terms of regional balance. There is also a real need for an independent review and an assessment of the flight paths. The changes to the flight paths that took place recently were shrouded in mystery. People who never had a plane go over their house before found themselves in flight paths and they found it very hard to get answers or to get to the bottom of it. They will say themselves that they felt like they were gaslit by the Government and the airport. We will be bringing forward amendments, as has been outlined. Those amendments are intended to be constructive but also to ensure the voices of the residents will be heard.

As the Minister knows, Ireland is an island and, therefore, its connectivity to the rest of the world is essential. The passenger cap at Dublin Airport is simply not working. In 2025, the cap was exceeded by around 4 million. Not only is it not working, it is not being adhered to. The Government must be mindful that any increase in the passenger cap at Dublin Airport will put pressure on existing services. As was said already, Dublin Airport is an important employer. I was contacted recently by a pilot from my area about car parking issues for staff at Dublin Airport. His employer is unable to provide staff parking due to limited DAA parking capacity, which means many airport workers are being pushed into paid DAA parking or private airport parking options that require pre-booking. He told me that pilots are regularly rostered for standby duties, which leaves them in a really difficult position. Either they pay in advance for expensive parking that they may not ultimately need or they risk having no parking available if they are called off standby and have only an hour to report for duty. As can be imagined, this is really far from practical. During the summer months, public parking is often fully booked, which adds further uncertainty. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that lifting the passenger cap will mean more staff. More staff will mean more driving and more driving will mean that we will need more parking. I am calling on the Government to plan for this certain outcome when lifting any passenger cap. Public transport is not a viable option for that pilot and many other people in Dublin Mid-West. I have raised many times with the Minister that there is no practical way to travel from Dublin Mid-West to the airport using public transport. The Airport Hopper was the most economical way for people in the area to get to the airport. People in Clondalkin, Lucan and Tallaght have been impacted by the decision to close this route. People in these areas have been left without a dedicated bus service to the airport for over a year. As the Minister knows, I asked him and the NTA to step in because when a privately run service stops, the State can take it over through a public service obligation agreement. My pleas have fallen on deaf ears so far. In light of removal of the passenger cap, I ask that any public service obligations are revisited and reconsidered because of the impact that will have on people in Dublin Mid-West. I have a final point which I have raised numerous times as well. It is a national embarrassment that Dublin Airport does not have a current rail or metro link. MetroLink was spoken about in 2005. Fianna Fáil crashed the economy. It basically crashed MetroLink at the time. Twenty years later, it was announced. Will the Minister fill us in on any update on MetroLink? Will we see it any time this decade?

We start building next year.

It is my first opportunity to speak with the Minister since becoming the Social Democrats spokesperson on transport and I put on record that I am looking forward to working with him for the duration of this term.

Me too.

The Minister does not need me to inform him just how important Dublin Airport is to this island. Directly, thousands of people work between both terminals every day and indirectly we have seen very impressive figures of the impact of the airport on hundreds of thousands of jobs. In 2025 alone, 36 million passengers went through Dublin Airport, a 5% increase year on year and a 46% increase since 2015. There were 215 days last year with more than 100,000 passengers. That equates to real, essential figures regarding tourism and employment opportunities. The 1.7 million transfers show us that Dublin can be and is a gateway to Europe and the rest of the world. As the Minister will know, aviation accounts for 2.5% of global carbon emissions and close to 14% of transport emissions. It is the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector. While we can see a rapid pace in decarbonisation in road transport due to alternative fuel sources, as Hannah Ritchie and Pablo Rosado suggest, the outlook for aviation is less clear. Some 1% of biofuel produced globally is used for air travel and less than 1% of aviation fuel is made up of biofuel. Globally, we do not have the infrastructure to supply the aviation fleet, even in the most optimistic of scenarios. As the Minister has said, the impact of aviation on climate and biodiversity should always be central to any discussion about expanding our aviation strategy. I am very aware that this cap was first introduced largely as the result of local infrastructure deficits and legitimate concerns regarding congestion, noise and impediments to those who live in the area or under the flight paths. It is worth putting on the record of this House that these issues have not gone away. If you couple the significant population increases in many of these areas with the significant increases in the number of passengers since 2007, if anything, the local infrastructure is less capable than ever of dealing with the consequences of the proposed legislation. As a Minister in the constituency, I accept Deputy O'Brien's bona fides in telling us of the support he is receiving on the ground from many who say this cap should be lifted for the sake of employment opportunities. That is also a very important point to make. If we are going to have a serious conversation about the future capacity of our national airport, it should not be based solely on the capacity of nearby roads to cope with passenger numbers. However, I must ask if there is appetite across government to deliver meaningfully for the communities most affected by this legislation. I remind the Minister that, during preparation of the pre-legislative scrutiny report, we heard that 8,000 homes were affected by the north runway under the current flight paths, compared with the 538 homes that would have been affected under the original permitted route. That is a 15-fold increase. Recommendation 5 of the pre-legislative scrutiny report is "that meaningful engagement is undertaken by the daa with local communities to mitigate the impact of noise from the north runway." These are tangible actions that could be progressed alongside this legislation as it moves through the House. We all know that Dublin Airport is not the only international airport on this island. Cork Airport has a capacity of 5 million passengers annually. Last year, 3.4 million people travelled through that airport. Shannon Airport welcomed 2.3 million passengers. That airport is also operating well below capacity. Ireland West Airport's passenger numbers exceeded 950,000 last year when it has capacity for 1.5 million. As the Minister is well aware, other airports exist in Kerry and Donegal. I am really not suggesting that they can collectively address the capacity issues that are before the Minister with regard to Dublin Airport but it is important that any aviation strategy include them as part of the conversation. It is this Government's obligation to ensure that legislation is evidence-based. What preparatory or exploratory work has been undertaken to see whether we are maximising the use of all airports on the island, while also addressing the capacity constraints at Dublin Airport? On the pre-legislative scrutiny undertaken by the Oireachtas committee, I heard the Minister on the radio last week and I join him in commending those committee members who did such a thorough pre-legislative scrutiny report on this Bill. Those recommendations paint a very thorough picture for the Minister and his officials as to how they should proceed in terms of Government amendments. If the Minister did not know before, he now knows about the potential health outcomes associated with this legislation and its impact on people, particularly children. Their voices must always be more important than sectoral interests. What mitigations are in place now that we know more? I will particularly highlight recommendation 12, which is: The Government should commission a comprehensive economic assessment of Dublin Airport on the model of the Schiphol assessment conducted by CE Delft, which examined the full climate, health, congestion and community costs of different capacity scenarios. This would be a very positive and worthwhile exercise. I ask the Minister to include all airports on the island in this exercise. I will finish with one final recommendation, which is, "Head 5 should be amended to ensure that the Minister's power to revoke or amend planning conditions is limited solely to the passenger cap condition." As the Minister will be very aware from his former role as Minister for housing and local government, we need a wider discussion within Cabinet about the role of local authorities. I understand how we got here on this issue but seeking to bring such comprehensive powers into the office of the Minister of the day potentially undermines the role of local authorities even further. We will be proposing a number of amendments over the coming days. They will be tabled in a very constructive manner. I look forward to debate on the next stage with regard to the role of local authorities and the very important issues of climate and biodiversity. Again, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this.

I had not expected to speak yet but I will take the opportunity. Things have moved very quickly. The benefit of Dublin Airport to Meath East is unquestionable. The opportunities for employment, the increase in the number of residents or constituents in the area and the opportunities for travel are all to our advantage. However, in recent times, the residents of Meath East have, without consultation, been affected by the increased number of flights to and from Dublin Airport. I will speak in particular about the north runway. My comments will be no surprise to the Minister, his officials or the Taoiseach as I have raised these issues previously. As I have said before, I try to focus on solutions. In that vein, I will read solutions into the Dáil record, some of which were conveyed to the Committee on Transport. I am not a member of that committee. I am grateful to Deputy Michael Murphy for his indulgence in letting me speak there. As we know, there are many affected residents in Meath East. There are people who bought homes in the constituency who never anticipated being overflown. The impact of the noise preferential route on these communities was never measured. Consultation with Meath County Council was never considered. Consultation was not extended to that council. I welcome the consideration within the Bill regarding public consultation in respect of environmental impact assessments being extended to Meath County Council. I will read something into the record. I hope it will come in under time. Parts of it have previously been read into the record. As I have said before, I am a solutions-focused person. This is a solution to the issues facing the St. Margaret's residents and the Meath East residents. It is provided by the North Runway Technical Group, a voluntary group comprising residents and pilots with technical expertise. There is a way out. It reverses a change rather than making a change. The 28R departure routes flown since 2023 have turned aircraft off the straight-ahead procedures for air navigation services-aircraft operations, PANS-OPS, default without the safety assessment that change required. Returning these routes to the default removes the unassessed change. Most of it can start this month with no loss to the capacity Dublin Airport operates today. Indeed, there is a possible opportunity for increased capacity. We currently have DAA and AirNav flying 28R departures straight ahead on the omnidirectional departure route DAA already publishes, operated using the dependent mode. That is the mode Dublin Airport already operates whenever there is a missed approach on the parallel runway. Given that the straight-ahead path follows the corridor the original assessment reserved for departures, every population count falls under this approach. The number directly overflown drops by nearly 80% and the number in the wider affected swathe falls by more than 40%. This fix reduces the impact rather than moving it onto anyone else. That has been cited repeatedly. It stops the steep low-altitude turn and only needs procedures and a mode that already exist. It is a permanent and independently designed solution. In this instance, the Government can commission a qualified procedure designer independent of AirNav and DAA with a proper published brief to design the durable solution, turning the 28L missed approach - the south runaway missed approach - rather than the departure and run it through a full four pillar balanced approach. Everyone wins - the DAA keeps its capacity and growth, the residents come out from under the routes and AirNav and the IAA get a defensible design. We are solving the problem ourselves and then moving forward with the Bill in the intended mode. However, the affected residents are my primary concern. The Minister knows from the committee that there have been presentations on the health impacts to residents in the area, which is estimated at a cost of €800 million per annum. Again, this reverses a change rather than making a change. I wish to raise the overflight of Meath. The current situation that we have is the 30-degree separation from the missed approach path of the parallel runway, 28L. That separation is a requirement of independent, segregated, parallel operations. It does not apply when the two runways operate in dependent mode. Dublin already operates in a dependent mode in this respect. The north runway already holds whenever there is a missed approach on the south runaway. The dependent operation is not something that AirNav would have to create. It is already there. It operates in constrained conditions, such as strong winds. It is the co-ordination process. Operating in dependent mode and releasing the north runway departures straight ahead on the omnidirectional procedure changes nothing except the direction of the turn. I repeat that it does not reduce the capacity that Dublin already operates. I hate to sound repetitious but the solution is here in reversing a change and the impact on the 30,000 people. Without referring directly to challenges that exist, we are aware that there are legal challenges take place. In the spirit of offering a solution, it is to reinforce this. I apologise for my repetition but there is a solution to this, which then it allows moving forward without opposition. Reversing the change reduces both the overflown and the affected population. The interim arrangement will deliver that reduction immediately. The North Runway Technical Group has published geographic information system, GIS, analysis. It has been measured on the published departure centre lines against the convention of an overflown swathe within 1.5 km based on the UK's department of transport track keeping norms and an affected swathe within 3 km of the track flown. It gives the total population within each corridor. Regarding the statistics in relation to Fingal and east Meath and the routes flown since February 2023, 13,923 residents have been overflown, and 30,540 residents are in the affected swathe. On the straight-ahead design based on the 2004 to 2005 environmental impact statement, EIS, for the 2007 application, the figures here are stark. This is where the solution focus is. A total of 2,888 residents are overflown and 17,481 residents are in the affected area. This is a reduction in the total impact, not a redistribution of it, which I can understand is a fear. I am somebody who would be living in the affected swathe where the straight-ahead mode be complied with. In the spirit of being solution focused, I seriously ask for this consideration to be acted on. However, first of all, I wish for it to be analysed. I have requested the safety reports that relate to the current 30-degree departure, and the subsequent 56-degree turn on departure from 28R. I await those. This is something that can be implemented within a very short timeframe. In the spirit of being the good neighbour as per the Dublin Airport Authority's website, a good neighbour in this instance is about reducing the health impacts, recognising the benefits of the airport and recognising our island status but trying to factor in, plan and implement for a win-win situation for our residents.

The Minister knows my views on this whole matter. Like Deputy Toole, I would like to think that I am coming at this from a sound and sensible perspective, not like the motion we had here last week where we had people who were against economic activity, building roads and everything we are trying to do from a common-sense point of view. We need roads and houses. A term used in the motion last week was "unsustainable housing". I would love to know what an unsustainable house is. I would love to know how any politician could deem what the Government is doing with Dublin Airport is wrong from an economic point of view, from a bringing people into this country point of view and from a strategic point of view. When we look at people like Michael O'Leary, I am very glad to use Michael O'Leary's name in the Dáil in a positive way. Usually, people like him are demeaned and downgraded in here because of their success, usually by a certain group of politicians who absolutely despite and hold a grudge against anybody who seems to create wealth, growth and employment. They seem to have a set against them. I wish to remind people about County Kerry's airport, Farranfore, which is strategically very important to us. Michael O'Leary has continuously told us that it is money that he makes in places like Dublin Airport that allows him to provide us with the service we have and are very thankful for. While I am at it, I would like to put in a spoke for more flights in and out of County Kerry provided by good people, such as Michael O'Leary and Ryanair. If we could have an earlier service in the morning, and if it is deemed financially viable to do so, we certainly would welcome it with open arms because Farranfore is one of the most unusual places in Ireland. It has an excellent road service and train service. That is a great advantage to us in the heart of County Kerry. Coming back to the whole idea of what the Government is trying to achieve in Dublin, it is very welcome. We need to remove this cap because, quite simply, we need to allow more business to come into this country. We need connectivity to the airport. There is no point in being retrospective about it but it is surprising that we do not a rail service to and from the airport after all of these years. Again, Rome was not built in a day. I refer to the way the Government is going and the removal of the cap. I have met with residents who outlined their concerns. Of course, there will always be concerns. One of the things that it always reminds of, and I would like the Minister to take this on board, is the person who applies for planning permission to build a house near another person's farmyard. When they are living in their house, they then complain about the farmyard. In other words, what was there first? Many of the estates-----

Deputy-----

Is my time up?

Yes.

Sorry. Regarding many of the estates that are built there, the airport was there before the houses, and they knew where they were going to live.

I call Deputy Danny Healy-Rae.

Who is next?

You.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle very much.

The Deputy has three minutes.

I am glad to get the opportunity to talk on this Bill. There has been a lot of talk about Dublin Airport and the cap. I know residents are concerned about it but Ireland has to move on. We need to open it up a bit anyway, give some relief there and give the operators like Michael O'Leary, who has been making a lot of sense about it, a chance to keep their flights and their business going. Until Ryanair came along, it was very expensive to travel in and out of this country. At the same time, I ask that Shannon and the regional airports not be forgotten, starting with Kerry Airport. It is very important to us. The more flights we can get in and out of Kerry, it would be a great help to people in Kerry who need to travel for work and many different things. For both Kerry and Shannon, which is a regional airport with a long and great tradition, more needs to be done to help the mid-west. Many of my uncles and aunts travelled through Shannon coming and going to America. Four of them made their lives over there - my father's brothers and sisters. It was through Shannon they had to go when they were coming and going to America. Likewise, we are very close to Cork Airport but Kerry is the one we support and we ask the best for it all the time. There is an issue this weekend. Kerry people may be disenfranchised if the Minister does not do something about the trains to ensure - I hope he is listening to me-----

I am.

-----that Kerry people can travel to this match. We are playing Tyrone on Saturday at 6.15 p.m. It is not a great time for Kerry people who will be trying to get home, maybe leaving Croke Park as late as 9 p.m. I ask that enough trains be put on for that event to make sure the people of Kerry can get up there and get back home again. I have to say to the Minister it is unfortunate Kerry people and elderly people cannot watch this massive game on TV when RTÉ got millions of euro - it got €725 million - to keep it floating, the very same amount the people of Ireland got-----

Keep it relevant to the Bill.

-----to help them with the cost of diesel. Do not forget us, Minister-----

I told you to keep it relevant to the Bill, Deputy.

------it is very important the people of Kerry can see the game, come up and get home again.

I am happy to speak on the Dublin Airport (Passenger Capacity) Bill 2026 this evening. The cap must be lifted but there are fundamental questions. There are other issues besides Dublin; it cannot all be about Dublin. That is what it has been. There is huge investment in Dublin. We do not begrudge it one bit but we need a more balanced regional approach. While I support the lifting of the cap, for years policy and investment have been overwhelmingly focused on the capital while our regional airports at Cork, Shannon, Knock - Deputy Healy-Rae mentioned Kerry - and now Waterford. We welcome the investment there. There is great potential for people in the south east. They have all remained under-utilised despite being efficient, modern and easy to get to, and easy to grow as well. I compliment the staff there. Passengers across the south and mid-west are paying the price. They face long journeys to Dublin, traffic gridlock on the M50, which I just came through in the past hour and a half myself, excessive costs for car parking at Dublin Airport, longer queues, bigger crowds and more stressful journeys. That is for sure - they are more stressful. Cork and Shannon airports serve vast regions, including County Tipperary, yet they are not supported in a balanced way. We must have more balanced regional development. It is imperative - we cannot not have it. The community wants to fly locally, and visitors to the south and south west do not want to face a two- to four-hour journey from the airport to wherever they are visiting in Ireland, yet they are given little choice with limited flights in these other airports. We must look at a better timetable for those airports and Waterford when it is completed. I compliment the private investor there and all who worked on it. My former colleague, Matt Shanahan, was a daily lobbyist here for Waterford Airport. Instead of continuing to overload Dublin, we should invest in and promote regional airports as available alternatives. Everything in this country appears to revolve around Dublin, while the people in Dublin do not want an increase in passenger numbers. You cannot blame them - they have issues and problems. The DAA must answer a simple question: how can it justify seeking ever higher passenger numbers in Dublin while Cork and Shannon remain significantly underused? It is an obvious question. Any of us in business would look at that and see what we could do about it. A fair and balanced aviation strategy is essential for regional development as far the travelling public is concerned. I recall a debate here with former Minister Shane Ross who I met today at his book signing Clonmel. I wish him well. He was here for a debate so it is a while ago now. It is an ongoing issue. The Minister has grasped the nettle; it is no bother to him. He is a good man to take on issues. This has to be sorted out. Long term, we must be understanding of the regions of Ireland, the south east with Waterford and the south and south west with Shannon and Cork. Cork and Shannon airports are a doddle to go through. The staff are very helpful. You are in and out. You are not stuck in queues for hours or in traffic. You have to be there three hours in advance for transatlantic flights; it is way too much and it is frustrating. It is not a pleasant journey. That is for us to think about. If we expect investors to come here, we need seamless travel to get to the regions where we want industry without undue delay and being held up at airports and in traffic.

As trains have been mentioned, I might take the opportunity to ask the Minister to engage with Irish Rail to make sure the 5.48 p.m. train from Drogheda Pearse to Malahide on Saturday evenings is a full eight-carriage train as the last two Saturdays with the gigs on-----

You might stick to the Bill.

-----in Malahide Castle have been half trains. They have left people behind in Donabate. I am sure the Minister will be concerned about that. I welcome the steps being taken to remove the passenger cap at Dublin Airport. We are an island nation. We depend on connectivity. A cap on our capital city's airport, as the Minister said himself, is a cap on our growth. Dublin Airport is not only an employer of approximately 130,000 people; it is also a gateway through which Ireland does business, attracts foreign direct investment and connects to Europe and beyond. As a TD for Dublin Fingal West, or north County Dublin, it is a constituency I know to be the best in the country in which to live and work. It is also the constituency where the airport is located. I must raise a number of issues with the Minister. The DAA has repeatedly said it is acting as a good neighbour to residents, community groups and sports and outdoor organisations affected by being close to the airport, in particular in relation to noise and traffic, but the Minister and I both know from our direct engagement with constituents that this is simply not the lived reality for many people. I urge the Minister to instruct the DAA to act fairly and genuinely invest in surrounding communities. That means widening the voluntary dwelling purchase scheme, offering fair and appropriate buy-outs to families most impacted and significantly expanding the noise insulation scheme so that homes receive high-quality, modern insulation that actually works. These measures already exist in principle but are too narrow and too limited in their application. They must be strengthened if we are serious about maintaining community trust. The second issue is flight paths. Following multiple engagements with the DAA, the IAA, Department officials and local residents, I have to say that I am none the wiser on flight paths. What I do know, however, is that something has changed in the last few years. That is obvious to anybody living in north County Dublin, to people working or playing outdoors, to families who were not previously impacted by noise, despite living beside the airport, but now are, and to anyone sitting on a plane departing Dublin Airport where aircraft frequently bank sharply after take-off. Adherence to safe flight paths that genuinely minimise the number of people impacted is absolutely essential. I am tired of hearing explanations that do not align with the lived experience of residents. I simply do not understand how this issue has not been resolved by now. The third issue is traffic. A credible and detailed traffic mitigation plan is not optional; it is absolutely essential. Increased airport capacity will place additional pressure on the already strained M50 and M1 corridor. At the same time, as the Minister knows, Fingal is delivering much-needed housing at pace. That will further increase traffic volumes. We also have to factor in the disruption that will arise from the construction of MetroLink and the DAA's infrastructure development plans. The delivery of a western access road from the M2 is critical. We also need a fit-for-purpose and fully integrated transport hub at the airport, with practical measures such as sufficient ticketing infrastructure, including Leap card facilities, until such time as we have contactless payments. I also raise a concern in relation to how the Bill is drafted. As it stands, it allows the DAA to apply to amend or revoke the passenger cap but it does not require that application to include concrete proposals on traffic mitigation, noise reduction, insulation, buyouts or any meaningful engagement with affected communities. Nor does it require those protections to be in place before the order is made. In effect, it creates a pathway for expansion without ensuring from the outset that robust and forceful protections are in place for those of us living close by the airport. I ask the Minister to look at that again and at what is included in the onus on the DAA in making this application. Finally, I raise the question of the national aviation policy. When will we see it? If we are serious about balanced regional development, we must ensure that regional airports are also supported to grow and reach their potential. Dublin Airport cannot and should not carry the entire burden of national connectivity. I welcome progress on this important legislation but I urge the Minister to ensure the DAA genuinely acts as a good neighbour to those of us living and working in north County Dublin and to strengthen the legislation to make sure the DAA must demonstrate it is a good neighbour in any application to the Minister.

This is serious legislation. The complexity involved in it is there for all to see. By virtue of the Minister's opening address and on any examination of the Bill, we can see just how complex this law has been in bringing it to the floor of the House. Understandably, there has been a lot of frustration among the sector owing to the delays in bringing a Bill like this to the House.

There was no delay.

Now the Bill is before the House. I am not criticising the Minister. I am talking about the past when the Bill was not brought to the Houses, and how long it has taken for a Government, that is, this one rather than the previous one, to legislate to address this issue. I compliment the Minister on bringing the Bill to the House and bringing us to this position. As a small, open economy, we face intense competition for the foreign direct investment that has been the bedrock of our prosperity. We do not compete for this investment for the sake of it. Investment and growth are required to fund better public services, the construction of housing and a more just society. For too long, Dublin Airport, which is the gateway to this country for investors and tourists, has been constrained by a planning condition that no longer reflects the reality we face in today's world. Passenger demand has already exceeded the cap for consecutive years, but this outdated restriction has been used to undermine our broader economic objective and limit our national potential. In my view, the Bill addresses this problem. At its core, this legislation changes something very simple. It changes who should decide the future of a piece of infrastructure that is of national importance. Dublin Airport is not a local facility; it is the gateway to Ireland for tourists, investors and people bringing jobs to this country. It is a gateway to Europe and the world for our people, students and exporters. Ultimately, the airport is the critical node underpinning the trade, tourism and investment that are the foundations of Ireland's economic success. Given that reality, it is entirely appropriate that the Minister for Transport have the power to amend or remove a constraint that is choking the airport's and the country's potential. There is nothing progressive about supporting a measure that constrains Dublin Airport's growth. Independent research shows that over 100,000 jobs are linked to the airport and that it contributes €9.6 billion in gross value added to the Irish economy. These figures show that the benefits of allowing the airport to grow are not abstract. It will create more jobs and investment in Ireland. That is what allows us to build more housing, improve public services and invest in transport, healthcare and education. I accept fully that this Bill involves difficult choices. It removes some planning powers from the local authority and moves them towards the centre, but that choice is justified in this instance. The airport's growth is an issue of national importance and requires considerations beyond that level. Environmental concerns have also been raised. It is clear that the Bill takes those concerns seriously. Too often, environmental-type arguments are used as a blocking tactic by those who fundamentally do not want to see Ireland grow, develop or attract investment. Again, that is not a progressive position to take and it is certainly not in the national interest. The Bill does not disregard environmental concerns. It provides for full environmental impact assessments, appropriate assessments under EU law, public consultation and independent scrutiny. These are robust and structured safeguards, so the notion that these changes represent a free-for-all is completely unfounded. The appropriate balance, in my view, has been struck by this Bill. The important and notable issue of noise, which Deputy Boland, as a local representative, outlined, is clearly a sensitive one in respect of Dublin Airport. Nobody can dismiss the concerns of people living near or adjacent to the airport. Equally, in order to be proportionate, using the small number of concerns people have as a justification for a veto over the growth of critical infrastructure cannot be countenanced. Importantly, in this Bill the assessments indicate that noise impacts are limited and manageable. Aircraft technology is continuously improving and the noise levels will continue to reduce over time. A blanket constraint on growth is neither proportionate nor sustainable. Overall, this Bill is a welcome and necessary measure. It recognises the central role that Dublin Airport plays in our economy. By providing the Government with the powers necessary to act in the national interest, it will allow Ireland to remain competitive in attracting the investment that funds social progress in this country, and it does this in a way that maintains robust environmental oversight. If we are serious about building a more prosperous Ireland for everyone, we must be serious about building the infrastructure that makes this possible. This Bill does that. I compliment the Minister on the work he has done in bringing the Bill to the House and all the work underpinning that work. I look forward to its enactment. I also look forward to the benefits that signalling the enactment of this Bill will bring to this country. The more routes that come to this country, the more investment we will see. I welcome the Bill's introduction.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Dublin Airport is incredibly important strategic infrastructure for the island of Ireland. Sinn Féin does not oppose the lifting of the passenger cap in and of itself. We acknowledge the existing cap is no longer fit for purpose and we committed in our 2024 general election manifesto to address that. However, the Bill before us risks rushing headlong into expansion without a proper assessment or plan for the consequences. It fails to meet the basic test of sustainability and, very disappointingly, it seems to ignore many of the substantial recommendations from pre-legislative scrutiny. As a result, Sinn Féin will table amendments on Committee Stage. I will now outline three of these. First, the Minister must ensure that the commencement of this Bill is contingent upon a comprehensive and independent assessment of the economic implications of lifting the cap, modelled on CE Delft analysis for Schiphol Airport. The model is there. The assessment must look beyond balance sheets. It must consider the impacts on health, housing, education, water, transport and the social fabric of our communities. It must also look at the impact of lifting the cap on other airports and regional and local economies on the island, and aviation policy more generally. As the UN special rapporteur on the right to help the environment noted during her visit to Ireland, "urgency cannot justify bypassing our obligation to undertake comprehensive ... assessments". The Minister should not ignore that advice. Second, the Minister should take the opportunity to improve aviation sector governance in the Bill. Sinn Féin will push for a review of the structure and operation of the Aircraft Noise Competent Authority to be completed within 12 months. If the airport is to grow, we need a regulator that is truly independent and robust enough to perform its duties and protect local residents. Currently, the body being regulated, the DAA, is responsible for collecting and collating data, including complaints data. This is an anomaly that has eroded public trust and it must be changed. Third, and crucially, we need an independent evaluation of the airport's flight paths. This evaluation must be completed within nine months and present proposals for alternative routes. An essential goal of this evaluation must be to minimise noise impact on existing neighbours and nearby residents. Communities in places like Ratoath, Ashbourne and St. Margaret's and the Ward are being ignored and left in the dark. They are facing unauthorised flight paths, sleepless nights and, in some cases, worse. There is a better way to do things. Local experts have gone a long way towards spelling that out. The Minister must insist on action in this regard. That is what our amendment will seek to achieve. Everyone can recognise that Dublin Airport is a vital national asset, but it cannot be treated as a law unto itself. Growth must be planned, transparent and mindful of the families who live in the airport's shadow. Sinn Féin will work constructively with the Government to ensure this happens and hold the Minister to account on these fundamental points.

Ag bogadh ar aghaidh go dtí Páirtí an Lucht Oibre, glaoim ar an Teachta Ahern.

I will share my time with Deputy Smith. This is an aggressively anti-climate Bill. This Government is making it clear to us that climate, environment or biodiversity considerations have absolutely no place when it comes to our aviation policy. It is ironic that we are debating this proposal to add potentially limitless additional carbon into our atmosphere on the same day that we are suffering with record temperatures, with hot weather warnings across Europe. We have heard that 40 people have drowned in France over the past few days due to the heat. Children are dying in cars, Europe is heating at twice the rate of the rest of the world and this is where our Government's priorities lie. 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 will see it later again this week with the liquified natural gas, or LNG, reserve Bill. Section 39 provides that section 15 of the climate Act will not apply, having regard to the likely consequences for the economy of the State and international connectivity if an order is not made. This effectively amounts to a legislative predetermination that economic interests and connectivity, whatever the hell that means, completely override climate considerations. Even our birds and natural habitats regulations are in the crossfire. The Minister will point to section 15 and assure us all that environmental impact assessments will be carried out and so on, but those provisions are rendered essentially meaningless by section 25, which states that, in effect, the Minister can just ignore or override an environmental condition from An Coimisiún Pleanála following an EIA. Basically, the whole environmental assessment process in the Bill is advisory, at best. Moreover, in cases where the commission determines there are likely to be adverse affects on habitats from a proposal to increase the cap, the Minister can unilaterally decide there are "imperative reasons of overriding public interest" in the proposal going ahead. There is no requirement on the Minister to engage in any sort of consultation in coming to that decision. He might opt to consult the housing Minister, An Coimisiún Pleanála, the DAA and other Ministers, but only where the Minister is already of the opinion that the public interest provision already exists. There is no obligation to consult any dedicated climate and environmental bodies, such as the Climate Change Advisory Council, the EPA or, indeed, the climate Minister at any stage in this process. For the record, not once is the climate and environment Minister mentioned in this Bill. References to the housing Minister appear repeatedly. Given that section 39 explicitly disapplies section 15 of the climate Act for both the Minister and An Coimisiún Pleanála, the absence of any consultation with the climate Minister is beyond concerning. It is becoming increasingly clear that there has been a significant amount of corporate capture of this Government, whether it is this Bill, which could have been written by Michael O'Leary himself, the data centre drive or the LNG Bill, which is being brought through to ensure continuity of its ever-increasing gas demands. We will keep hearing an economic argument from the Government on removing the passenger cap, and I will come back to that, but we need to be honest about what this Bill will do. Scrapping the passenger cap at Dublin Airport means more flights, more pollution and higher emissions at a time when Ireland is already dangerously off track on climate action. Any hypothetical economic gains from removing the cap, and those are debatable, could be wiped out by the €26 billion in fines we might be facing from failing to meet our climate targets. This Bill does not just raise the current cap of 32 million passengers, which, for the record, Dublin Airport has consistently broken in recent years, to some higher figure. It allows the Minister to scrap the cap altogether. There is no alternative ceiling proposed. The Minister has floated a figure of 60 million passengers a year, almost doubling the current limit. As per anything one might expect on climate from this Government, there is a clause exempting the Minister from having regard to section 15 of the climate Act when making this decision. If this expansion is sustainable, as the Minister says, why is the Government running scared of the climate action Act under environmental legislation? The Minister and this Government are intent on compounding our already abysmal record on climate and are abandoning any pretence of caring or wanting to at least try to catch up on what we have legally committed to. Against the backdrop of our failure in achieving our climate and emission reductions targets, the Government is now proposing a policy change that independent analysis suggests will see flight emissions increase by 24% if passenger numbers rise to 40 million. That is almost 581,000 tonnes of additional CO2 by 2034, and 40 million passengers is a conservative scenario. As I said, the Minister suggested 60 million passengers, in time. However, it is fine according to the Government because international aviation emissions are not counted towards our national emission figures. Our emissions obviously impact globally, and in a world where only 5% of our global population has ever taken a flight, to suggest that because we do not count international aviation emissions means it is okay to expand exponentially betrays a total disregard for any semblance of global climate justice. This Government is rapidly losing any credibility internationally and here at home when it comes to the climate crisis. That has consequences. It cannot, on the one hand, tell our workers, farmers, hauliers and households that they must bear the cost of our decarbonisation efforts and, on the other, wave through unlimited aviation growth with a legislative shield against its own climate Act. People will understandably start to question why they should bother when those at the top are not only allowed to continue to pollute on a massive scale, but are actually being facilitated to increase their emissions. This is a bowing down to corporate interests and greed dressed up in the language of connectivity and competitiveness. This is not just a moral failing; it is a legal one too. Notwithstanding the disapplication of our own climate laws, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the State has a positive obligation to protect its citizens from the foreseeable harms of the climate crisis. I do not mean that in an abstract sense. The European Court of Human Rights found exactly this in the recent KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz case against Switzerland. The Dutch Supreme Court found likewise in the Urgenda Foundation case and the International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion last year, confirmed that states must use all means at their disposal to prevent harm from greenhouse gas emissions, including, expressly, emissions from fossil fuel consumption, which includes aviation fuel. A legal analysis of the passenger cap removal commissioned by Opportunity Green and prepared by barrister Tim Johnston of Brick Court Chambers sets out plainly that Ireland, already behind in our own targets and comparable countries and already in breach of climate commitments, is exposed to a credible claim that lifting this cap, while simultaneously excepting the decision from climate scrutiny, constitutes a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. I am sure a copy of that report has been shared with the Minister. Not only are we risking our climate, but the Government is also actively risking public funds in litigation that this analysis tells us is entirely foreseeable. The Minister has relied on the environmental impact assessment provisions as a way of getting around the climate argument. He knows well that this is a wholly inadequate framework for assessing the climate impact of this decision. As section 15 of the 2015 Act will not apply, any environmental impact assessment carried out under this Bill cannot properly account for the national transition objective or our greenhouse gas mitigation obligations. In any case, are we really to believe that an environmental impact assessment will throw up something that will make the Minister reverse course on this? It is literally written into the Bill that he can simply ignore such assessments. It is a fait accompli. However, we have clear jurisprudence from several different courts, including the ECHR and the UK Supreme Court, that environmental impact assessments for high-emitting projects must comprehensively assess downstream combustion emissions, must look at scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions and must be grounded in the best available science. The cases in the rulings of these courts involve fossil fuel extraction but the logic applies equally to a project that will materially increase aviation emissions into the future. If this Government proceeds with an assessment framework that does not capture the full climate footprint of additional flights, arrivals and departures, carbon dioxide and non-carbon dioxide effects alike, it is inviting a legal challenge that, on the weight of recent European jurisprudence, it stands a real chance of losing. Exempting the Minister from section 15 of the climate Act does not make the climate consequences disappear; it defers them and it leaves even less room to manoeuvre for every future Minister, planning authority and local councillor, who will all have to find emissions reductions elsewhere to compensate for the growth this Bill will unleash. We are still waiting to hear from the Minister on where the equivalent emissions reductions will come from. Will it be farmers who are asked to pick up the slack, those in the transport sector or regular households, many of whom are already doing their best to be environmentally conscious? It is households in the Minister's own constituency who will feel the impact of this move most immediately by virtue of the fact that they live under the flight paths. The consequences here are being pushed further downstream to the local planning authority, which can fiddle with planning conditions but cannot touch the one lever that actually matters: the number of aircraft flying overhead. We have seen where this can lead us. A ruling in the Hague District Court in 2024 stated that the Dutch Government had acted unlawfully in failing to protect residents near Schiphol Airport from noise pollution, breaching Article 8 of the ECHR, and ordered the Government to provide practical and effective protections to those affected. The same protections under Article 8 apply to residents here, and further protections apply under Article 40.3 of our own Constitution, which obliges the State to protect the property rights of every citizen. The assessment provisions in this Bill are unlikely to meet even the basic common law obligations to consult those whose rights are affected. I referred earlier to the Minister making decisions on this cap based on economic interests and international connectivity. Can the Minister please define "international connectivity"? There is no definition in this Bill. Does it mean routes to specific destinations, frequency of services, the number of carriers or some other aggregate measures? We know we live on an island and we know we do not want to be stranded here but how much connectivity is enough? This approach to connectivity is just like the Government's approach to the unmitigated expansion of data centres. How much is enough? If the Minister is basing his decision on international connectivity, it would be helpful to know what the actual metric is. On the economic case, I point the Minister to a study commissioned by the social council for Schiphol Airport. It examined what would happen to broad welfare under three different scenarios for the size of the airport in terms of flight numbers. Broad welfare, for the benefit of this House, is a framework that goes beyond GDP to capture economic output. It looks at employment, health, housing, noise, nature and climate all together, precisely the kind of holistic accounting that this Government has failed to apply to its own decision on Dublin Airport. The findings are instructive, and I seriously encourage the Minister to examine the report. The study found that even a substantially smaller Schiphol, with 250,000 flights, barely half of today's traffic, could still preserve a large majority of the connectivity that Dutch travellers actually use because the destinations that disappear are disproportionately sustained by transfer passengers rather than Dutch residents. The extra journey time imposed on the average traveller was measured in minutes, not hours. The most salient finding of this report, however, is that the aviation sector losses are dwarfed by the climate gains. In other words, restraint on flight numbers does not just reduce harm: on the Dutch evidence, it produces a net welfare gain once climate costs are properly priced in, even after aviation sector losses are accounted for. This study also acknowledges that capacity caps are not the only option. It refers to a cost-benefit analysis of the options available to Schiphol, tellingly titled "Shrink or become sustainable?". The analysis found that environmental and noise measures, including a higher distance-based flight tax, delivered considerably greater broad welfare benefits than a blunt capacity restriction does, precisely because pricing instruments let you target the noisiest, most polluting, longest haul flights rather than cutting capacity indiscriminately. The lesson, then, is not that caps are the only available tool; it is that doing nothing and simply lifting the cap with no replacement mechanism, as the Government is doing here, is the worst of all options. Reducing flights or pricing their environmental cost properly can deliver a net gain for society. Unlimited expansion, on this evidence, risks a net loss. What is more is that we have a persistent travel deficit in this country. Irish people spend more abroad than tourists spend here, so more flights actually takes more money out of the country than it brings in. Research shows this and it undermines the Government's claim that aviation expansion is an unqualified economic benefit. The serious international evidence shows that the relationship between airport size and national prosperity is far weaker than that assumption and that the environmental and health costs of unrestrained growth are not some marginal externality to be waved away. They are large enough, on a comparable European analysis, to turn an apparently pro-growth decision into a net loss for the country as a whole. Finally - and this is frankly pathetic - this Bill provides an open invitation for airlines to bully the Government and talk down Ireland if they perceive that there is some inhibitor to their commercial interests in Dublin. Section 25 gives licence to the Minister to change planning conditions where they are perceived to be potentially damaging to "the international reputation of the State in respect of air transport". This is extremely open ended and essentially unfalsifiable. There is no objective standard for reputational damage, no evidence threshold, no definition. The provision could be invoked on the basis of adverse commentary from Michael O'Leary, a familiar noise to all of us. What do we think will happen here? We will have an airline lobby that is never happy and we will have incessant calls to expand and expand, with the airlines knowing that if they paint Ireland in an unsavoury light, they will get their way. We are enshrining corporate bullying of the State in our law. That is embarrassing and it is the cherry on top of what is fundamentally a regressive and bad policy.

Last week the Minister accused the Labour Party and, by implication, myself of being anti-Dublin Airport and anti-growth. He knows me and the Labour Party better than that. This is a far more complex issue than he purports or presents it to be. I know where I stand on the airport, and my record stands up in terms of representing airport workers at all grades and all levels through the Covid pandemic and all the other difficulties. I want the airport to thrive but not at any cost. The values of the Labour Party, in terms of this Bill, are based on good planning and standing up for a good planning system. The implication of this Bill is that Fingal County Council, the local planning authority, is in some way unable to deal with the complexities, the needs, the desires and the implications of Dublin Airport in a planning capacity, that this has to be taken out of the airport's control because it does not have the expertise or the professionalism to deal with it, that this has to be taken in centrally and that only the Minister can determine what is right for Dublin Airport. Nothing could be further from the truth. DAA, under previous leadership, has actively polluted its relationship with Fingal County Council. The planning application DAA put in in 2023 to raise the passenger cap was one of the largest planning applications ever submitted to Fingal County Council. The application was declared invalid by Fingal County Council, which said it failed to comply with various planning and development regulations and was misleading, inadequate and non-compliant with relevant regulations. In addition, DAA failed to ask for a series of pre-planning meetings with Fingal County Council. That is absolutely incredible for a planning application of that size and that import. By the way, it was not just about raising the cap; this was about 11 huge buildings, with tunnels under the aprons. It was a massive planning application. DAA put it in designed to fail because, ultimately, it wanted to get this matter here. It wanted to get its desires in the ear of the Minister on some amorphous definition of growth, which, as my colleague outlined, is difficult, almost impossible, to define. It is, however, a great weapon to throw at Opposition Members who have issues with this Bill: "You are anti-growth." We are not anti-growth. We are pro-climate, yes, but we are also pro-good planning. This passenger cap was brought in as a condition of the north runway through the planning system and it should have been dealt with and tackled through the planning system. The fact that it was not is not the fault of the planning authority or the planning system; the fault is squarely on the DAA. This semi-State organisation rented trucks with loudhailers to drive up and down Swords Main Street in front of Fingal County Council's office, saying, "Get rid of the passenger cap". They sent them down to Croke Park when Dublin were playing in the all-Ireland last year, the loudhailers going, "Get rid of the passenger cap". This was childish, ridiculous behaviour, totally unbecoming of any organisation, never mind a State agency with such strategic importance as Dublin Airport Authority. As for this whole thing that opposition to this is down to some NIMBYs in north County Dublin, we have to put that to bed as well. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae earlier was saying the airport was there before the residents. That is an absolute fallacy in terms of the reality of the situation. When it comes to aircraft noise, residents on an east-west trajectory were given insulation - some were - and the day the north runway opened, the planes took off and deviated 30% north and flew over Rolestown, Ballyboughal and other villages in north County Dublin which had seen big growth in housing and were not covered by noise insulation. They had done their due diligence when they bought their homes. They were told they were not going to be under flight paths. It turns out the wool was pulled over their eyes by the DAA and now they are being flown over every day and have no recourse. These residents are airport people. They understand aviation and the airport better than the vast majority of people in this House. They do not want the airport to fail or aviation to fail, but they want a bit of fairness. They want the DAA to act professionally. I am not even going to get into the point about good neighbours and bad neighbours because that has been well made. They want the DAA to act professionally but how the DAA has acted over the last number of years and under the previous leadership has been an absolute disgrace. We now have a Bill which is going to have untold consequences in terms of the planning system. It is a template for when a Government is unhappy with a planning condition or decision of any local authority; it will just bring in some primary legislation. My colleague, Deputy Ahern, has articulated incredibly well the setting aside of the climate action Act. It is a huge concern. The DAA has brought us here, the squeaky wheel is getting the oil and it is going to have huge impacts on our planning system and on our climate.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Dublin Airport (Passenger Capacity) Bill 2026. Last year, the airport saw 36.4 million passengers travel through it. It was the busiest year in the airport’s history, up more than 5% on the year before. Passenger numbers there have grown by 46% in the last decade. The cap is set at 32 million, so last year the airport carried more than 4 million people above the limit that was imposed on it. The demand is real and the growth is real. The cap is the one thing standing against both. This is the heart of the matter. We are not debating whether people want to fly to and from Ireland; they already are, in record numbers. We are debating whether the law should keep pretending they cannot. Dublin Airport is not just a transport hub; it is one of the largest pieces of critical economic infrastructure in the State. An independent study commissioned by DAA found that the airport contributes €9.6 billion in gross value added to the Irish economy. This is the equivalent of 2.3% of the entire national economy. It supports or facilitates over 116,000 jobs across the Republic. This is not a Dublin story alone. The same study found that 28% of the airport’s economic contribution lands outside Dublin and the rest of Leinster, and that 31% of the jobs it sustains are across the rest of the country. When Dublin Airport grows, Wexford, Donegal and Kerry grow. The gateway is in Dublin and the benefit is of national importance. That is the figure that should focus minds. The same independent analysis found that holding the cap at 32 million would cost Ireland an additional 17,800 jobs and €1.5 billion in economic value by 2030. This is the price of inaction, not a saving. It is a loss for the country. As an island nation with an open economy, connectivity is not a convenience for us; it is the condition of trade, tourism and investment. Research consistently shows that well-connected economies export far more than poorly connected ones. The cap works against every one of those elements, and it does so at our own expense. If a route cannot land in Dublin, it lands in another European capital instead. The connectivity goes elsewhere and so do the jobs. The cap does not protect Ireland, it penalises Ireland. This Bill does not ignore the people who live around the airport. Their concerns, which were raised earlier, about noise and flight movements are legitimate, and they are taken seriously in this legislation. Before the Minister can make any order, An Coimisiún Pleanála must carry out a full environmental impact assessment and an appropriate assessment, in line with EU law, with public consultation built in. The Minister must take account of the outcome. That is the right sequence: lift the cap, but do it lawfully, transparently, and with the environment properly assessed. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport did serious work in this regard. It received 136 submissions, held six public hearings, and made 16 recommendations. The Bill reflects that scrutiny. The Minister’s power is confined to the passenger cap alone, an order falls away once a planning decision replaces it and the assessments are built into the process rather than bolted on after it. Some will ask why we cannot simply wait for the planning system. The honest answer is time. A planning decision on DAA’s application to raise the cap to 40 million is expected later this year or early next. It is likely to be appealed, if not judicially reviewed. That could add another year of uncertainty. Airlines plan their networks years in advance. They cannot plan against a moving target. This Bill provides a lawful interim solution that addresses the cap while the planning process runs its course, and it protects that live application so nothing here delays it. I welcome the Bill. It is a measure for jobs, connectivity and the economy. It is balanced and, on the evidence, it is needed now. I ask the Minister to confirm that the stakeholder forum planned for July will give the communities around the airport a clear and meaningful voice, alongside the airlines and the airport itself.

I broadly welcome this Bill. It is, however, correctly contentious and controversial in circumstances where we as a country and as a planet face an extraordinary challenge in terms of reducing emissions and dealing with the consequences of climate change, which we see today as we all schlep around here in suits, sweating. I do have reservations about the de facto setting aside of the climate action legislation in the context of this removal of the cap, and also later this week in the context of the gas reserve Bill. It is problematic to entirely throw out responsibility in that regard. I would like to hear from the Minister what safeguards he has put in place to deal with that. Creating an open-ended situation is not the right answer, either. I say that, however, conscious of the fact that Dublin Airport is the primary route to get people and goods in and out of this country, particularly from further afield. We are an island country and we do rely on air transport to get people on and off the island and to get goods in and out. I recognise the reality of the situation and the fact that steps have to be taken. Reference has been made by many speakers in this debate to the growth of over 40% in terms of passenger accommodation in the airport, and of over 36.4 million people in the airport last year. That is entirely predictable in circumstances where our population has grown by over a million in the past less than ten years. We know the country is growing. It makes sense, therefore, that the cap would also grow. You cannot have a situation where the population is getting bigger and bigger and, by extension, the demand for air transport is growing, and not reflect that in terms of the changes that are being made to the cap. I accept the necessity for this. When we look at air transport in other European countries, there is not the same restriction on airports in other European capitals as there might be in Dublin. It does not mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater or say that there should be no limit or control. I know the Bill does not say there is no control and there are procedures for orders by Minister and all the rest. I am just sounding a note of caution in relation to the complete removal of the restriction. I wonder about where the trade-off is. It does not remove our obligations in terms of meeting climate targets or emissions reduction targets. Where is the counterpoint? Where is the point where we are going to enhance our emissions reduction if we are now de facto going to increase emissions from the airport? We know that emissions from the airport have increased with the increased air transport in and out. Again, I recognise it might be a necessity that comes with that but I also recognise that we have a necessity to act in terms of climate change and the level of emissions being produced here in Ireland, so what sector is going to have enhanced work to reduce emissions? Where are we going to counterbalance the effect of removing this cap to ensure that we do not let the situation with emissions completely run away with itself and leave ourselves and, by extension, everybody else on the planet in a very difficult position? I would love to hear a comprehensive answer to that question. I am not sure it is an easy question to answer, in fairness to the Minister of State, but I do think that we need to keep a check on our progression towards emissions targets and how we are going to manage that. I do not have a difficulty with increasing air traffic in and out of the airport; I think it is a necessity. It is a reflection of the reality but, therefore, we must look at some other sector where we can reduce them. The Minister of State will be aware that there are other sectors where we are not reaching targets or making the emissions reductions we need to make. Let us have that grown-up conversation, recognising the reality, and decide what we are going to do in the other areas to ensure that we do not just let the whole thing get away from us, which is a real danger now. We can see the effects of climate change in real terms, not just with hot weather but also with stormy weather and the effects that global warming generally has on weather systems and the risk we face as a country and as a world in terms of what those emissions are going to do. That is my primary concern. In principle, I do not have a problem with this but I do have a problem with the notion that we just scrap a realistic attempt to meet our climate ambitions and our emissions reductions. It is a very well put-together Bill but I do have some issues with it. The first is the use of "daa" in lower-case letters. That is a branding function of Dublin Airport. It has created it and trades as daa. In statutory terms, my understanding from looking at section 2 of the State Airports Act 2004 is that it is DAA - Dublin Airport Authority with a capital "D", capital "A" and capital "A". I do not see where that has changed anywhere in legislation - I am open to correction in that regard - but the use of lower-case letters, which is a branding function by Dublin Airport, is replete throughout this Bill. It is like what happened when the Child and Family Agency suddenly became Tusla. Nobody actually authorised that in statute. It is the Child and Family agency but is routinely referred to by its marketing name, which is Tusla. That is all very well but I just wonder about that in the context of a statutory piece of legislation going through these Houses. The reference to daa is defined in the Bill as the Dublin Airport Authority - the company, that is - but I do not think it is appropriate to refer to it using lower-case letters in the marketing term. I will now turn to provisions later on in the Bill that relate to judicial review. Section 29 changes the test for bringing judicial review against any order or any decision made and requires the applicant in judicial review proceedings to establish substantial grounds, which is a much higher bar than is usually required for judicial review. Similarly, section 30(2) removes permission for the applicant to amend the grounds on which leave was granted, which is done as a matter of course in judicial review proceedings. Sometimes circumstances will change or information will become available that will require the change of the grounds on which leave is being granted. This is part of a broader Government attitude to judicial review. I understand that judicial review is a pain and that it obstructs things and can delay things but it is also a constitutional right of the citizens of this State to go to the courts to review the administrative decisions of the Government, Departments and other agencies. It is an important right and I do not know about the constitutionality of curtailing that right in the way that it is being curtailed in sections 29 and 30, for example. If we are concerned about the length of time it takes to bring judicial reviews, it would be much better to invest in speeding up the process of the courts, investing in something akin to what was done in the Commercial Court over 20 years ago. It would involve investing in more judges and more resources for the Courts Service so that people could still have their opportunity to challenge decisions and do so in a real and meaningful way under the Constitution, but it would be done in a faster and more efficient way. I recognise it is a problem but the answer is not to curtail the rights of citizens to challenge the administrative decisions of Departments and agencies. The answer is actually to facilitate it to a much greater extent and I wonder if the constitutionality of those specific provisions has been really thought through from the point of view that they curtail citizens' rights.

As a an island economy, Ireland's connectivity is essential and, to maximise the benefits to our economy, we need an ambitious aviation strategy. That does not mean that all roads lead to Dublin Airport, which is just as well considering the traffic mayhem there at the moment and the lack of a sustainable transport system. A successful strategy demands balanced, connected infrastructure that leads to sustainable rural and regional development. There is an all-Ireland dimension that also needs to be addressed. Brexit demonstrated how important trade into and out of this island is. Dublin Airport has long been operating over capacity. The passenger cap is not fit for purpose and was never adhered to. In 2019, 2023, 2024 and 2025, the DAA knowingly ignored and exceeded the cap. Last year alone, the cap was exceeded by over four million passengers. As this Bill is very light on detail, Sinn Féin will be tabling amendments to address this. We will propose amendments to mandate the Government to update our national aviation policy, ensure balanced regional development and set out a long-term strategy for Dublin Airport that includes an all-Ireland dimension. The lifting of the passenger cup must be done in an organised fashion that benefits not just airlines and big business but also the wider community. To ensure this happens, our proposed amendments to the Bill would ensure that residents, community groups and other stakeholders are fully consulted with. Despite what the Minister says, residents feel that they are being ignored. The lifting of the cap will also require that adequate and well-resourced infrastructure is put in place to meet the extra demands from increased passenger numbers. This was one of the reasons for the cap in the first place. It was a condition of planning for the north runway development. This means a better public transport system that includes delivering the long overdue metro north project. The lifting of the cap cannot be allowed to contribute to worsening the traffic chaos that already exists in Swords and Dublin Fingal East. We will also be seeking wider investment in insulation, better buy-out deals, agreed flight paths and overall better protection for residents. I understand why local residents are frustrated and angry. The DAA's engagement with residents has been consistently poor. It is not a good neighbour. Residents have been forced to take court action to ensure that their voices are heard. The cap is now subject to legal challenge under EU law. If the cap is not lifted before the forthcoming European court ruling, this could force the IAA to enforce the cap more strictly. This would have a very negative impact on Ireland's economy, particularly on our tourism sector. Regardless of the court ruling, local residents must be heard and included in a meaningful way by both the DAA and Fingal County Council. There are a number of important unresolved matters that must be addressed, including night flights, flight paths, noise and kerosene fumes from planes waiting to take off. Night-time flights are of particular concern, with flights permitted at the airport increasing from an average of 65 a night to 95 between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. Long before I was elected to local or central government, I stood with the residents in St. Margaret's The Ward and the people of Swords who have sought a better life and I have continued to engage with the wider community in Fingal east. I live in Swords and I represent the people in Donabate, Portmarnock, Malahide, Portrane and Kinsealy - all of the areas that are worst affected by noise at varying degrees. When I was on the council, I had a motion unanimously agreed for the Fingal development plan that highlighted the need to tackle the serious health and safety issue of noise pollution for the local community. Unfortunately this motion was ruled out of order under the direction of the then Minister. The proposed legislation does not effectively deal with residents' concerns, including in respect of health and well-being. I can assure residents of Fingal east that I have heard their concerns and we will work tirelessly to ensure they are addressed. Our priority will be to mandate the DAA to engage meaningfully with residents; to enhance community compensation, including for voluntary relocation, improved insulation and mitigation measures; and to address the variations in flight paths while protecting residents and staff.

If there is anything we do not need during a climate emergency when we are literally having a heatwave right now - we had one two weeks ago and we will probably have many more over the rest of the summer - and when the world is literally burning, it is the Minister is coming in today to lift the passenger cap on flights at Dublin Airport. People are saying that we need this for growth. We need to do something about the climate emergency and we should actually be reducing flights rather than aiming to increase them in any way, shape or form. It has been amusing to listen to the contributions of some people who normally jump up and down about Dublin being the fount of all evil. This proposal is really against balanced regional development. I am shocked that some of those who complain about Dublin getting everything are okay with lifting the passenger cap on Dublin Airport. Currently, Dublin gets ten times more passengers than Cork. Dublin is the capital city but it does not have ten times the population of Cork. After this measure, it is estimated that passenger numbers will increase by 22% by 2031. Aviation accounts for approximately 6% of our carbon emissions, with Dublin Airport making up some 85% of that. What we have seen from the Government is that the environment just does not matter. Whether it is data centres or flights, the message is that we are open for business no matter what. A Fine Gael Deputy asked how this measure will be made up for elsewhere in the economy. No answer has been given but it seems that Deputy will line up to vote for the Bill. The other issue is that the Bill comes at the request of Ryanair and the American airlines. Ryanair's carbon emissions are now 50% higher than they were in 2019, which is the largest increase among the top 20 most polluting airlines worldwide. There are real environmental issues associated with lifting the passenger cap. When so much is already going through Dublin, there are implications for balanced regional development. Is there any other airport without a rail line that would lift its passenger cap? It is absolutely farcical that people walking out of Dublin Airport have to get a bus or taxi. I do not know of any other capital where there is talk of enlarging its airport in that situation. There will be increased car traffic as a result. A metro line from the airport to the city is in the dim and distant future.

Construction starts next year.

There are issues for residents. An earlier speaker said that everyone living in a house near the airport knew this would happen. In fact, people did not know. There are lots of much older communities in the area that predate the airport. People certainly did not know there would be relentless growth of the airport. The impact of airport noise on people's sleep is being studied worldwide, including by Dr. John Garvey, director of the sleep laboratory at St. Vincent's hospital. His evidence shows that airport noise leads to more cardiovascular issues in affected areas and those statistics are backed up internationally. We do not know what impact the lifting of the cap will have specifically on night flights but it will mean many more flights and much more noise for those impacted. In 2024, 6,700 more people were affected by airport noise, which was a big increase on the previous year. Another issue is the lack of democracy. Fingal County Council will have any controls in relation to the airport taken from it, and the Minister is happy with that. It is being done because elected councillors are much closer to communities and residents. It is anti-democratic. As I said, airport noise in the Fingal area leads to a huge number of health issues and the lifting of the passenger cap will make that situation worse. The Minister is from one of the impacted areas. The lifting of a passenger cap in any airport during a climate emergency would have to be queried. Will he answer the question asked by a Fine Gael Deputy before he came into the Chamber as to how the increase in carbon emissions will be made up for elsewhere in the economy and in society? We should know that before we vote on this Bill.

Ireland is an island nation and we all recognise the necessity of airport connectivity for our people and our economy. We already have good air links and they will continue. The question before us today is whether this legislation is a proportionate and appropriate way to balance our commitment to a connected island with our obligations to meet climate targets, protect local communities and care for our environment. My concern is that the Bill does not even make an attempt at balancing those competing needs. Instead, we have legislation that is one-sided in its focus, was constructed entirely with the desires of one set of stakeholders in mind, ignoring all others, and creates a set of real risks. The first and probably most glaring issue with the Bill is its direct effort to undermine the signature climate action legislation that is intended to keep Ireland on track to meet its climate obligations. Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that Ireland is on track to significantly exceed its 2030 climate limits. With less than four years until we are supposed to reduce our 2018 emissions level by 50%, the Minister has already announced that we are far off track. Raising the passenger cap by just 8 million is likely to increase flight emissions by about 24%. Yet, the Minister has indicated in remarks he has made over the past year that he wants to double the numbers currently going through Dublin Airport. This is not about saying people should not fly. It is inevitable that people will fly out of and into Ireland. The question is whether it makes sense to have absolutely no upper limit on flight numbers going through Dublin Airport, with all the connected climate, environmental and community impacts of that approach. Just as significant is the message the Bill is sending on national climate commitments. In recent years, the Government has tried to undermine the climate Acts in numerous ways, particularly by way of legislative mechanisms. The Critical Infrastructure Bill, the Development (Strategic Gas Reserve) Bill and this Bill each contain specific carve-outs to exempt the particular issue they deal with from scrutiny under section 15 of the 2015 Act. There is a sense almost of pre-emptive guilt on the part of the Government. The exemptions are an admission that it knows these legislative measures will not stand up to scrutiny from a climate perspective. It is seeking to forestall any opposition before it even starts. In essence, the Government is seeking to remove even any monitoring of some of the most carbon-intensive industries in our country at a time when we are significantly failing in our climate commitments. This is not an abstract issue. It exposes us to serious environmental, social and financial risks. We know there is a cost to non-compliance that is in a range somewhere between €8 billion and €26 billion. The removal of the obligation to adhere to section 15 of the climate action Act in relation to the passenger cap does not remove the Government's wider obligations under national law, international law or, indeed, under the European Convention on Human Rights. A legal opinion that was sought on the Bill found the lifting of the cap without introducing any other protections will expose the Government to a credible claim that it is in breach of Article 8 of the convention, which concerns the right to protection of private and family life, by failing to shield its citizens from the health impacts of the climate crisis. The same opinion also found the State had a procedural obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment, EIA, including of all CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from arriving and departing flights, or face significant risk of being challenged in the courts. The Bill will not make our climate commitments go away but it does leave significantly less room for manoeuvre for all sectors of our economy that are not insulated from scrutiny in the way the Bill insulates the aviation sector. In effect, one sector will have no upward cap on its emissions, while others will have to constrain themselves even further to allow that to happen. The legal opinion I mentioned makes that point quite starkly: "The disapplication of section 15 of the 2015 Act ... directly impacts Ireland's climate targets, as the significant emissions associated with the Cap Repeal will significantly constrain the margin of discretion of public authorities to make strategic decisions about future infrastructure." In short, this Bill is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Any disapplication will push climate costs away from aviation onto other sections of the economy and other sections of our society. Future infrastructure projects will be increasingly jeopardised and constrained to mitigate the consequences of what I would say is the reckless deregulation proposed in this legislation. The justification for all this that we have heard from the Minister this evening is that this Bill is critical for economic growth for our country, when no cost-benefit analysis has been carried out and we know current activity levels at the airport are incurring health-related costs, as outlined by other Deputies. A recent report by the UK Department for Transport on the economic implications from the expansion of Heathrow Airport found that the positive gains were outweighed by the social and environmental impact, which for that airport was estimated at between £58 billion and £82 billion. An independent cost-benefit analysis of the impact of this expansion is necessary, and that should have been conducted in advance of legislation being moved forward. Compounding the Government's unbalanced approach to the legislation is the attitude that has been taken to stakeholder engagement. In preparation for this debate, I asked the Minister via a parliamentary question to provide information about the companies and the lobbyists he had met to discuss this Bill. The result is quite stark. The Minister and the Taoiseach were very willing to engage with the airlines and their representatives and that is absolutely fine; they are lobbyists. However, no efforts were made to engage with the environmental organisations to get alternative perspectives on this particular area. I note in particular that a number of environmental organisations actively sought engagement with the Minister, including Children's Rights Over Flights and Friends of the Earth, and these meetings were not granted on this issue. This is not a balanced approach. It appears that in the drafting of this legislation that perspective about the environment was entirely absent from considerations. Deputy O'Brien is the Minister for Transport but he is also the Minister with responsibility for the environment and climate. Yet, he seems allergic to meeting organisations representing those particular interests. This lack of consultation feeds into the way in which this legislation is likely to impact on local communities. It does not appear the key concerns that local communities have voiced throughout this process and in detail at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, when we heard on this issue, have been taken into account in a meaningful way in this Bill. Since the north runway entered operation, local residents living close to Dublin Airport have already highlighted significant concerns around a range of issues, particularly the issue of noise. I know the Minister has constituents in his constituency who have undoubtedly brought this issue to his attention. Deputy Coppinger and I have heard from people in places like Hollystown, Hollywoodrath and Tyrrelstown, where the impact of noise is a regular issue and particularly the change in flight paths from what people were told to what actually was eventually permitted. Of course, all of this is taking place with the current restriction and current cap in place. I understand the Minister met residents of St. Margaret's and The Ward last month. I think they provided the Minister with an economic analysis they have done of the costs to health, particularly from noise generated from the airport. Local residents are already being severely impacted by the current levels of activity at Dublin Airport but, again, instead of engaging meaningfully with those concerns, this proposal is to introduce potentially limitless increases in the number of flights on top of the existing problematic patterns. I know from FOI requests that there has been more correspondence between the Minister and Airlines for America than with local groups. In advertising this Bill on social media over the last week, the Minister said that people's concerns would be addressed in a substantive way that is respectful of local communities. I do not believe this adds up when I look at this draft right now. The Bill does not in any way anticipate an assessment-of-noise impact and it again pushes responsibility for noise mitigation back onto the planning authority. The need for air connectivity in an island nation like Ireland is unavoidable. Again, nobody disputes that. What is of concern here is the ill-considered way in which this legislation has been brought forward, without any recognition of a balancing or any recognition that other considerations need to be taken account of in bringing a change like this forward. The hallmark of good legislation is a balanced approach between competing needs within our society. This legislation makes no efforts to do that. It is single-minded in its approach and offers no idea as to what a proportional approach to passenger numbers at Dublin Airport might look like. To achieve this, it undermines the climate action Act and ignores those key concerns of local communities that have been voiced to us all on many occasions. This is a reflection of the way that the legislation was prepared in close consultation with the aviation industry but with the concerns of those key environmental groups entirely excluded. Ultimately, it will be ordinary people who bear the consequences of this approach in the costs of complying with missed climate targets and in the impacts from increased noise for those living in the vicinity of the airport. Again, and it is unfortunate to say, the approach being adopted to this legislation is more and more replicated across the Government's approach to all issues to do with climate and the environment.

I join my colleagues today in emphasising the importance of Dublin Airport as a key international hub and the crucial role it plays in driving economic growth, strengthening connectivity and supporting jobs across the country. As an island nation, our connectivity depends on aviation and seafaring. Irish residents travel more frequently and over longer distances than their European counterparts, with air travel per capita almost double the European average. For that reason, the passenger cap constrained our ability in this country to meet clear and growing demand and its removal is a welcome and necessary step. Dublin Airport is central to our economic success. In 2025, more than 36 million passengers came through the airport making it the busiest year on record. Those numbers have grown strongly in recent years reflecting Ireland's openness and international reach. That connectivity is a huge strength, with more than 190 destinations, over 2,600 weekly departures and connections to 130 cities across Europe. Dublin Airport anchors Ireland in the global economy. That is the economic reality the Minister and I live in. As the only EU member state with English as a primary official language, this connectivity gives us a unique advantage in attracting investment and building strong commercial ties with countries and like-minded individuals abroad. The economic contribution is substantial. A 2023 study estimated that Dublin Airport supports over 116,000 jobs across the State, makes a €4.9 billion contribution in wages and contributes €9.6 billion in gross value added. That is 2.3% of the national economy, give or take. Each job created can be linked back to Dublin Airport and the role it plays. Tourism is another major beneficiary. In 2024, over 4 million tourists visited Dublin. On Dublin's contribution to regional development, many of those tourists came through Dublin Airport but went on from the city to visit many corners of Ireland. Dublin Airport was again at the heart of that success. As visitors numbers go up, so do pressures on local services and I reiterate my support that we look at that tourism levy again as a Government. If we are to get greater numbers in through the airport coming to Dublin and beyond, the tourism levy is a key element of making sure that Dublin has a good offering and is well maintained, open and welcoming to our visitors. This expansion also presents an opportunity to lead in the area of sustainable aviation fuel, SAF. Whether through advanced biofuels or synthetic fuels, we are well positioned to develop expertise in this area. There are very limited quantities of SAF currently available on the market and development and deployment will need to quickly ramp up, as by 2050 it is mandated that at least 70% of the fuel supplied to many EU airports will be SAF blended with conventional aviation fuel. This is a gap in an area that Dublin Airport can inhabit. As the sustainable aviation fuel policy roadmap published last year highlights, there is a real commercial opportunity for advanced biofuel production in Ireland in the medium term. In this respect, the roadmap identifies the national biomethane strategy as an important policy interlinked with SAF policy development. There is a big opportunity in Dublin Airport to lead out in Europe on this area. There is also a broader benefit. That same expertise developed in low-carbon aviation fuels could help address a major domestic challenge, namely, the 750,000-odd homes that still rely on kerosene for home heating. Developing alternative low-carbon and liquid fuels could support households where electrification is not yet viable, providing a practical pathway to reduce emissions. Aviation sustainability is not just a challenge, but a real opportunity for Ireland to lead, innovate and reshape how we connect with the world. In an area defined by environmental responsibility let us lead out. Let us become a European centre for sustainable aviation fuel. The expansion of Dublin Airport is a positive for the entire country. However, it must proceed in a way that respects local communities. I ask that the Minister urges the DAA to continue expanding its residential noise insulation schemes so nearby residents are protected and insulated from noise as the airport grows.

As an island with a dispersed population, connectivity is crucial to our continued economic development. To continue this development it is necessary to lift the passenger cap in Dublin Airport while also focusing on delivering balanced regional aviation growth. That is something I suggest this Government and its predecessor have failed to do. Last year, Dublin Airport exceeded the passenger cap by more than 4 million passengers. The 32 million passenger cap must now be removed. If not, and due to legal challenges, there is a danger that the Irish Aviation Authority could be forced into enforcing this cap more strictly, which will negatively impact our wider economy particularly our foreign direct investment jobs and tourism economy. While we in Sinn Féin are supportive of the Bill, we are not uncritical of it. We will be introducing amendments to address gaps regarding regional development and an absence of an all-Ireland aspect to the Bill. The very fact that Dublin Airport is exceeding the cap by 12.5% shows there is great potential to expand capacity at our regional airports, specifically at Shannon Airport. Balanced regional development is essential to ensuring prosperity across Ireland and, as such, we need to see more ambition when it comes to the development of Ireland's regional airports. With 88% of all passenger traffic coming through Dublin, there is huge opportunity to expand the performance of our regional airports. Simply put, there has been insufficient capital funding to our regional airports, with only €82.3 million assigned for the whole decade to 2030. This level of funding spread across airports and across years is far short of what is needed if we are serious about improving connectivity, expanding routes and developing sustainable regional economic growth. Shannon Airport has been performing very well. In quarter 1 of this year, 427,655 passengers used the airport, which is an increase of 11% on the 385,000 who used the airport in the same period in 2025. Comparing these periods, there was an even greater increase in the transport of cargo through the airport, with 5,443 tonnes passing through in quarter 1 this year, which is a 53% increase on quarter 1 of 2025. Increasing the use of Shannon Airport is crucial to improve the regional balance. A 2023 report noted that operations by Shannon Airport Group contributed €4 billion to the Irish economy. The potential is there to deliver much more. Shannon Airport has been performing well but has the capacity to grow its numbers easily enough. Its terminal has the capacity to handle up to 5,000 passengers. The year 2025 was the airport's most successful in 16 years, with 2.3 million passengers using the airport. Today, while we talk about the necessity of lifting the cap at Dublin Airport, we must also give consideration to enhancing capacity at Shannon Airport, an enhancement that should coincide with improved public transport services to the airport. The mid-west, where Shannon Airport is situated, is uniquely positioned to drive regional balanced development. Shannon Airport has been the fulcrum around which the economy of the mid-west has been built. Within Shannon we have an industrial estate not too far away and in my city of Limerick we have several large international companies across numerous industrial estates that would benefit greatly from increased capacity and an increase in destinations serviced by Shannon Airport. Further to this, the airport serves as a gateway to the Wild Atlantic Way and some of the best golf courses in the world. Having worked in the travel and tourism industry for nearly 20 years, I understand the challenge of attracting additional routes and new airlines to airports outside of Dublin. The Shannon Airport Oireachtas group, of which I am a member, is a cross-party group of mid-west TDs and has met many times with the Shannon Airport Group. From those discussions there is absolutely no doubt that they are ready and willing to see an increase in the use of the airport for traffic. The lifting of the cap at Dublin Airport is undoubtedly necessary but this Bill stands as a missed opportunity to deliver meaningful regional development. The level of support provided to regional airports has, so far, been insufficient. Quite simply, ambition is not matched by support. An opportunity exists to enhance the performance of Shannon Airport and this must be seized at the moment.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on what is without question a significant, far-reaching piece of legislation. Independent Ireland recognises the critical importance of Dublin Airport to this country. It is our main gateway to the world. It underpins tourism, supports our exporters, connects families and plays a vital role in attracting international investment. There is no point in pretending otherwise. If connectivity suffers, the national economy suffers and we are where we are. The current passenger cap of 32 million put in place under very different circumstances is now widely seen as a constraint. Businesses are saying it. The tourism sector is saying it. The workers whose livelihoods depend on those sectors are saying it so, yes, action is needed. However, the question before us today is not whether something should be done; it is how it will be done. This Bill proposes to give the Minister sweeping powers to override existing planning conditions, effectively allowing a single political officeholder to amend or remove the passenger cap even while the processes are ongoing elsewhere. That is a very serious step. It represents a significant shift away from our established planning framework and towards a model where central government can step in and bypass the usual checks and balances. I understand the frustration with delays. We all do. Communities across Ireland are waiting years and sometimes decades for critical infrastructure. Planning has become, at times, painfully slow and overly complex but we must be careful that in trying to fix one problem we do not create another. Once a precedent like this is set, where a Minister can effectively overwrite planning conditions in the name of economic interest, it raises the simple question, where does it stop? Today it is Dublin Airport. Tomorrow it could be another major project and the risk is that local voices and communities who live with the consequences are gradually pushed further to the margins. That is not a road we should go down lightly. Independent Ireland believes in balance. We believe in supporting growth but not at any cost. We believe in infrastructure but also in fairness, and we believe that communities, whether in Dublin, Cork, Kerry or anywhere else, deserve to have their concerns heard and respected. That brings me to the communities around Dublin Airport. For many years, residents have raised legitimate concerns about noise traffic congestion and the day-to-day impact of airport operations. I have met a lot of those residents. Those concerns cannot simply be brushed aside. They must remain central to any decision. The Bill provides for environmental assessment and that is welcome, but it also allows the Minister to proceed even where the impacts are identified, provided the mitigation measures are put in place. That will raise concerns and rightly so. We have to ensure that mitigation is not simply a box-ticking exercise but something really enforceable that actually protects people's quality of life. At the same time, we must look beyond Dublin if we are serious about balanced regional development, which this Government says it is. We cannot put all our focus on expanding capacity in one location. Airports in Cork, Shannon and Knock are vital regional assets. They are engines of employment, tourism and economic activity in their own areas but they need support. They need investment and they need to be part of a coherent national aviation strategy, not an afterthought. There is a real risk here that continued expansion of Dublin Airport could further concentrate activity in the capital, drawing routes and resources away from regional airports. That would be the wrong approach. We should be growing capacity in Dublin Airport but alongside meaningful development in the regions, not instead of it. Another concern in this Bill are the restrictions on further passenger caps throughout the planning system. That is a profound change. Planning authorities exist for reasons. They provide a level of oversight and accountability that is essential in a democratic system. Removing their ability to impose such conditions in future essentially rewrites the rules and we need to be very clear about the implications of that.

In 2021, the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act was introduced by the Government. It was supported by Sinn Féin and introduced the carbon tax. Today, yesterday and the day before Sinn Féin were saying they are against carbon tax. Yet, they voted for it in the climate action Bill.

You must not have been here last week, with the amendment.

They are now coming out saying they are against these things. Every week they jump up and down here saying they are against it but last week they decided they were going to fight for it. Deputy Daly is right; I was not here last week for one reason-----

The Deputy must not have been paying attention for a few years now.

We were wondering.

I was the first person to come to the Dáil in a truck protesting against carbon tax. The Deputies must not have been here that time because they never came out to the truckers.

Keep clapping yourself on the back there, Deputy.

They never came out to the people on the protest but they came out the last day to support them. That is what they did. Now, getting back to this-----

It is better to fight with us than with the Government, is it not? We are recommending-----

The Deputies love talking about other people but they cannot talk about themselves.

Can we have some order, please?

Exactly. There is no order.

Where were the Deputy's amendments?

This is what Sinn Féin tries to do to the Government. It will not silence me because I know what I am talking about.

Put in the work and bring in amendments.

What way is the wind blowing today for Sinn Féin? Hold on, I must check. Here they are; the wind is over here.

The Deputy is getting good laughs. The Minister is having a good laugh at him.

Good.

Do the work on the amendments, Deputy. You are sitting back.

The Deputies are still talking. Look at this, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Go ahead, Deputy.

Thank you very much. To get back to Dublin Airport, I am delighted the airport is doing well but as regards climate emissions, the climate action Bill was supported by the Deputies on my right. They brought in that Bill. Where are most of the people who are landing here going? They are not staying around Dublin, are they? They are travelling throughout the country. Where are the carbon emissions when the Government is talking about that? What about the cost of fuel, which it wants to increase by 32 cent per litre? Where is the Government going with this? On the one hand, it talks about carbon emissions, while, on the other, it wants to expand Dublin Airport, which is 6 million passengers over quota. Why did it not look at Shannon Airport, which could add another 2.5 million passengers without any infrastructural change? Why did it not look at Cork Airport? Why do people have to travel from all different parts of the country to come to Dublin? It is because they cannot get connecting flights due to the monopoly in Dublin. The people who live around Dublin Airport are all complaining about noise pollution and traffic congestion caused by people trying to get to the airport. What do the Dublin TDs say? Let us make Dublin more congested, they say, and stop any person coming home to Dublin to live with their parents or grandparents. Let us stop them because we are going to make sure we have all our eggs in one basket. Ireland should be the basket where everything is shared, rather than just looking to Dublin. I have brought this issue up more times, even in the convention centre. When I was in the Central Bank today, I said we were in the convention centre for a year. I brought the issue up that time when the former Minister, Eamon Ryan, was talking out of both sides of his mouth about carbon tax. What is the Government doing? It is stopping people coming home by overdeveloping Dublin and not looking after the rest of the country. This all comes back to carbon tax. The Government will take more and more carbon tax and stop families from looking after their young ones and building their own houses. It will stop infrastructure in this country because of inflation, all of which has been brought on by the carbon tax, but it has no problem in letting buses and trucks travel from the port in Dublin. Of the passengers coming into this country, 83% travel down the country. I would welcome them to Limerick but they could have landed in Shannon Airport and come into Limerick or gone to Kerry, Cork or Galway. They could land anywhere in the country and we would divide up the carbon emissions, but, no, the Government just wants to extend one place. It wants to put suffering on the people of Dublin, whose families cannot come home, and build houses in this area because it is overpopulated. The rest of the country is crying out for business, including the other airports. The Government could expand Knock airport or Kerry airport, which would lower emissions. As for most of the targets, we see all the buses travelling down west on day trips before heading back up to Dublin again. All of it is down to carbon emissions, which the Government says it is trying to reduce, but, at the same time, it is trying to accelerate them. Where is the Minister's explanation for that? I am all for working together but I am also for equality for the other airports, which should expand at the same time. How can they go against a monopoly that has all the connecting flights? There are only a certain number of flights out of Shannon Airport because the connecting flights leave from Dublin. That is a problem. If the Government wants to do the right thing, it should connect all of Ireland and let all the airports develop together. Then it should look at increasing the cap if the quota is too low. It should look at the issue that way. Increasing the cap in one airport while not helping the other airports and people around the country is wrong. It is not forward planning; it is Dublin planning. The Government is destroying the future of the next generation who want to come back and live in Dublin. It is destroying the lives of people who live around the airport with the extra flights that are going out. Aeroplanes taking off at Dublin Airport are supposed to bank at a certain time. Now the airport is asking how it is going to organise that. The planes are supposed to go out 3 km before they bank. Now, because there are so many flights coming in, they are banking at 1.5 km out. That means they are going over more residential areas, yet the Government wants to approve more residential building and allow more people to live there. The Government should look in the mirror when it is introducing laws because it is breaking the law.

There are serious spatial development problems in this country. The Minister is long enough around these Houses to recognise that, and he should recognise it. A demographic change that has accelerated in recent years has been one of population moving from the west coast to the east coast. Currently, 40% of the population lives in the greater Dublin area. The GAA did a very good report recently on the demographic problem we are hitting. Two thirds of the population of the country, North and South, live in a very narrow band along the east coast. Most university-level jobs are being located in Dublin. Young people have to move to Dublin to work in those jobs but, obviously, Dublin is too expensive. They cannot afford to live in the city, so they end up living 40 km, 50 km and 60 km away in a commuter hell as they try to hold down those jobs. That commuter hell is obviously bad for their lives. Spending two or three hours daily in a car is bad for mental and physical health. For people with a young family, it hurts the children they do not get to see and creates anxiety for them. It hurts the community because those people do not get home until 8 o'clock in the evening, which means it is too late for them to be able to volunteer in their football, soccer and rugby clubs. People are commuting from Ulster, Connacht and Munster into Dublin on a daily basis. Disastrous, lopsided, city-state spatial development is happening under this Government, with absolutely nothing being done to mitigate it or push against it. While this is happening, it is not good for Dublin. Dublin is becoming more congested, with people having less access to housing and education. Transport facilities are becoming harder to access while, at the same time, schools are being closed in rural and regional Ireland, which is emptying out its young people. The average age of the population in Killarney is now ten years higher than the average age of the population in Balbriggan. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy because the energy of development usually happens with the youth and because regional and rural Ireland is missing its youth, it is also missing that development. Some 50% of the State's total income tax revenue is spent in the Dublin area. The vast majority of foreign direct investment is going to the greater Dublin area. There are significant problems. Ireland is an outlier here. Many people will say that London is too big for the rest of the economy, but 40% of the Irish population live in Dublin whereas about 20% of the British population live in London. We are an outlier, in European terms, with regard to how horrendously lopsided we are as a country. What is the Government's response to that? Its response to the water pressures in Dublin is to spend billions of euro to take water out of the Parteen Basin and bring it up to Dublin. Most logical and spatially aware Governments would say we should develop the Limerick region and get the population into the region where that natural resource is located. The same is happening in regard to airports. Today, tens of thousands of people will have left areas right next door to another airport to travel three or four hours to Dublin Airport. Some 40% of the people who land in Dublin daily travel west, where there are other airports. Shannon Airport can take 5 million passengers. The current number is not even half that. Cork Airport could take another 2 million passengers and Knock Airport could take another 500,000 passengers. There is massive spare capacity in these airports, and using it would cause no difficulty at all. Putting all your eggs in one basket is dangerous in terms of exposure for transport. All of us can remember the images of the fuel protests when the M50 was blocked. We saw people having to walk, pulling their travel bags behind them, up a motorway to try to get to the airport. Making sure all of the growth happens in Dublin at the expense of the regional airports also creates a problem. There is no contingency plan for Dublin as a result of this. I will touch briefly on the issue of noise, which is having a massive impact on the towns and villages in north Dublin and south-east Meath that surround Dublin Airport. The airport is currently in breach of planning permissions that were put in place to protect people. That is wrong. The guidelines on this are not being implemented. The DAA has been given eight warning letters and two enforcement notices and is still not responding to this. There are 65 flights at night-time. Places like St. Margaret's are dying. The IAA is not doing the necessary assessment on the two runways working in unison. We want to be accessible to the rest of the world. As an island nation, we need accessibility but I plead with the Minister to start to inject proper spatial development into his plans. There is then the issue of carbon emissions. Telling people to make sure there is less water in the kettle before boiling it and turn off the lights, while, at the same time, pushing up this cap and putting so many data centres in the country makes a mockery of the Government's ask that people cut back their own emissions.

Knock Airport has been one of modern Ireland's biggest success stories. Monsignor Horan built Knock Airport on a hill. Everyone said it could not be done. When the Government cut funding, he went to America and Australia and raised the shortfall himself. Over the past 40 years, Knock Airport has been a lifeline. It has helped hundreds of thousands of families see their loved ones. It has been so important to Mayo and the broader region. The focus on Dublin and the Dublin-centric nature of the Government is crippling Dublin. It is incredible to think of this conversation on the passenger cap and all of the difficulties that are arising as a result, while regional airports are crying out for funding and have the capacity to grow, with minimal investment. In the region of 40 buses a day leave Galway city and travel to Dublin Airport. That is one operator, Citylink, which runs 40 buses. It is incredible. Galway city is actually in the catchment of Knock Airport. In many instances, it is easier for a person from Galway using public transport to access Dublin city and Dublin Airport than it is to access Knock Airport. That is a fundamental gap and fundamental issue. It is one of the reasons the full potential of Knock Airport is not being realised or utilised. In the region of 40% of people using Dublin Airport land at the airport and then travel west. The Minister's answer to that is to increase the passenger cap. Would it not make more sense for spatial development and to people's lives if we were to alleviate the difficulties in regional airports and address those issues? On so many issues, including infrastructure, traffic, housing and employment, the focus on Dublin has not only been detrimental to Dublin, the east and the next generation of families who want to build and live in Dublin, but it has cost the west and regional Ireland the sons and daughters of all of the families who had to leave to seek employment in Dublin. It has cost the people of Dublin and their children the ability to purchase homes in Dublin. We see this focus on Dublin and an instinct to put Dublin first playing out in this policy. I urge the Minister to take the opportunities presented by Knock Airport and the other regional airports. They are there to be grasped. Knock Airport serves a catchment of 1.1 million people. How can those people access the airport? They do so with tremendous difficulty. That is the answer. We do not have rail to Knock Airport. The Minister for Transport has an opportunity to drive the western rail corridor, not just from Galway to Claremorris but on to Sligo and connecting to the airport via a shuttle bus. He should make Knock Airport the first airport connected by rail. These types of measures will help the people of Dublin but they will also help the people of the west.

I will not take lectures from Independent Ireland which recently said sport should not become a tool about Israel playing Ireland. The Minister should have taken a stronger stance on that, but Independent Ireland should not accuse Sinn Féin of anything when we are only trying to help the public. I welcome the legislation, which will encourage tourism on the island of Ireland. However, it is a blunt tool which is not fit for purpose and may well be legally unsound. That said, there is an absolute need for the Government and the DAA to recognise the outstanding issues that local residents have. It is disappointing that the Bill does not provide that recognition. I appeal to him to work constructively with the Opposition as we seek to address these issues. In particular, he should mandate the DAA to engage meaningfully with residents. I am also deeply concerned about the impact maintaining the cap could have on our tourism sector, which supports well over 200,000 jobs, often in parts of the country that have otherwise suffered from a dearth of inward investment. The tourism sector, as the Minister knows, has not had enough attention from the Government in particular areas where it is needed. This is especially case with regard to the many workers in the sector on the minimum wage and the Government's decision to delay the implementation of the national living wage until the end of the decade. Crucially, the tourism sector has immense potential in terms of geographical spread and even greater again in terms of its ability to contribute to economic regional balance. I contend that has yet to be realised. Our regional airports are necessary components of balance, which has been lacking. Galway and Sligo airports are closed to commercial traffic. Kerry, Knock and Waterford airports need far greater consideration, Waterford Airport in particular where positive development is being seen almost in spite of the Government. It is a positive thing that we can look to Dublin Airport as having even greater potential, but with 88% of passenger traffic passing through that airport, it would be wrong to think our regional airports do not have more to offer. We need to encourage more tourists to visit the untapped parts of the country beyond Dublin and the larger and more traditional destinations. There is not a county in Ireland that lacks the potential to draw great numbers of tourists. I was a member of the Sliabh Beagh Partnership Committee when I was a councillor. I was delighted to see the allocation of funding last year to develop the Sliabh Beagh area as an eco-tourism destination. I know that every county has similar potential. Investment is needed but so too is greater encouragement for tourists to travel to all destinations. All of our regional airports have a role to play in this. Derry and Belfast also need particular consideration in the context of cross-Border tourism. It should be recognised that to maximise tourism potential on the island of Ireland, all airports on our island need to be considered. We should seek to remove the hurdles and recognise that Ireland is a single destination, one that has a diverse range of offerings in every corner of the country and the space in-between. In that context, I appeal to the Government to progress this legislation, but to do so in the context of a wider, considered aviation strategy in which balanced regional development, including tourism, are to the fore. Ireland, as the Minister knows, has 32 counties. We need to encourage tourism to all counties and to increase flight caps nationwide, not just in Dublin.

I thank all Deputies for the contributions they have made. I thank them for the constructive contributions that were made by most. It is unfortunate that the Members who were some of the most vociferous opponents and made the most impassioned pleas have not remained in the Chamber to get an answer to the questions or the points they have raised. I hope that will be what Committee Stage is for. I will deal with regional growth and regional airports in a moment, but first, this Bill provides us an opportunity to deal with a legacy issue that is there and, frankly, to deal with some issues that DAA under previous management did not deal with. This condition was on two planning applications going back to 2007 and 2008. It should have been dealt with before this. It is unsustainable that it remains in place. This cap will be lifted through this legislation in a sustainable and respectful way to adjacent communities. To complement that is the draft decision of the Aircraft Noise Competent Authority, ANCA, which it just issued last month in relation to noise. There are real noise issues with some communities. I listened to Deputy Coppinger and Deputy Ahern of Labour, whose points I may speak to in a moment, but as I said earlier on in the debate, the reality of it is I live beside the airport. I represent an airport community. We know how important that airport is. We know that in some incidences that relationship between the airport and some local communities has not been as it should be and needs to improve further. The draft regulatory decision by ANCA will be a very important one. I have written directly to the airport in relation to expansion of the noise insulation scheme. We want to see that happen. The ANCA decision will allow that happen. We want to see improvement to the voluntary purchase scheme for those directly impacted. I talk about residents who I have met in St. Margaret's, the Ward and the wider area, but also residents in parts of Portmarnock for whom noise insulation needs to be addressed. Deputy Toole and some others mentioned flight paths, which was valid. I am committing here that we will carry out an independent assessment of flight paths. There have been issues for residents where flight paths and planning permissions have been granted and they have not seen those flight paths operate as they were approved. That is not acceptable. A retention application went in on that. That is something I am committing to the House that we will have an independent assessment of the flight paths operated out of Dublin Airport. Dublin Airport does need to continue to grow, and it is growing. It underpins jobs, as Deputy Daly said on behalf of Sinn Féin. It is recognised, as other Deputies said, how many thousands of jobs, livelihoods and families are sustained by the airport. I also refer to the international connectivity we derive from the airport as an island nation within Europe. I was surprised that the Labour Party spokesperson on transport needed a definition to try to understand what international connectivity is about. I broadly welcome the input to the debate. Residents are to the forefront of my mind; as are those residents' jobs and people's jobs. That has been rightly raised here because some, like Deputy Richard O'Donoghue, have tried to paint it as some Dublin instead of any other airport thing. That is just not true. We are in the middle of a €200 million investment in Cork Airport at the moment. Let us look at the regional airports. Cork Airport is up 13% from 2024 to 2025 with 3.46 million passengers. Deputy Quinlivan mentioned Shannon Airport; I have been there on a number of occasions. It is up 9% in passenger growth on a full year basis to 2.3 million, with capacity to do more and a very good capital plan. We have now brought Shannon Airport into the regional airports programme. We have changed the regional airports programme to enable us to assist and fund Shannon. I want Shannon Airport to grow. It is growing. I want Cork Airport to continue to grow. It is also growing, thankfully. I want Ireland West Airport at Knock to continue to grow. Its numbers are up 13.5% year on year. I was at the 40th anniversary of the airport at Knock. It is a wonderful facility and it is touching on a million passenger journeys through there. Kerry Airport is at 440,000 passengers, up about 5.5% year on year. As regards Donegal Airport, also critical to the northwest region, we have made sure we are supporting the PSO service and the schedule there. That is really important. On an all-island basis, we are funding through the Taoiseach's shared island initiative, the PSO that will enable us to start the Dublin to Derry route again. That will also be great for connectivity in that area. We do have Belfast International Airport on the island as well. We have to look at this on an island basis. Some have asked about a national aviation policy. We have committed to doing that. We will be bringing forward an issues paper later this year and will seek public consultation into a new national aviation policy. We are world leaders in aviation. Some people want to ignore that. We have the largest airline in Europe. Some of the CEOs of the top companies all the way across the world are actually Irish. We have great expertise and a great track record in this sector too. If we look at the area of leasing, over 50% of the aircraft that fly across the world are leased in this country. Aircraft engines are leased in this country. There is also the expertise that our MRO sector has, underpinning tens of thousands of other jobs. There is a new facility open in Knock airport where aircraft engines are being repurposed. Lots of really good things are happening here. We cannot have a situation whereby, through a legacy planning condition, the main international airport - I say the main, not the only - and an airport that is also an international hub is stifled in its growth. If we do not address this we may not only be looking at stifling its growth. Deputy O'Gorman seems to want that we go back to the 32 million cap. Some 34.6 million passengers went through the airport last year. If you cut those numbers you are cutting jobs, connectivity and routes. I do not think anyone can say with any degree of honesty that this is something the general public across Ireland would want. Even among many of my constituents, the vast majority of them support the move to remove the cap in a sustainable way. There are others who do not - let us be straight about that too - and I respect where they are coming from. A lot of that has been down to the way they feel and the way they have been treated over ten, 15 and 20 years. I want that to improve. The airport has to operate under a good neighbour policy. I can assure the House that the board that is there, the interim chief executive, the management team and the new chairperson who is coming in, are really clear about that and they want to that to happen. In many incidences they do. This is not just through community benefit funds and others. We need to see expansion of the noise insulation schemes and the other things I have mentioned. The new national aviation policy will be important in that regard to underpin this. I can assure Members that we will work on a constructive basis through Committee and Remaining Stages on this Bill. It is a very important piece of legislation. I am committing to the House on the independent assessment of flight paths that we will carry out. To those who came into the House and said there is no environmental considerations in this Bill, that is not true. It is absolutely not true. It is clear throughout the Bill. Those assessments will be assessed by An Coimisiún Pleanála; not by the Department or by me as Minister, and rightly so. I am just surprised the leader of the Green Party is not very clear on our obligations under the climate Act or our international obligations under climate agreements. The emissions of the aviation sector are not counted in that sector. As a small island nation, we do not have large industrials here. We are moving in the right direction in relation to emissions reductions. We also have to see how we connect with the rest of the world, how we continue to drive growth in that sector, continue to ensure technological advances in aviation continue where we are reducing emissions and fuel use, and that we look at alternative fuels. We have to do more than look at it but also look at how we can improve the blend, as Deputy Ó Muirí was mentioning earlier in relation to the work we have done on SAF. We are one of the first European countries to come out with a SAF roadmap. This legislation is urgent. It is priority and it is needed. I welcome the support from most of the House, though not from all, to look very clearly at what we are intending to do. We are not intending to rip up the planning Act in any way, shape or form. We are dealing with the legacy issue here in a way that is fully respectful of our environmental considerations. We are also ensuring that the airport operates under a good neighbour policy and improving the situation for the small number of residents who are very directly impacted. We want to operate and move this legislation through in an efficient way but in a fair and balanced way, which we will also do. I thank the Deputies for their contribution. I thank my own team from the Department who have been here assiduously taking notes of contributions, as have I. That will inform us as we go into the Committee, Report and Final Stages of the debate, which I understand we intend to have next week in the Dáil. Then from there it will go to the Seanad. I very much appreciate people's time here today and their input into this important legislation. Let us move on and get this done for the good of our country, of the Dublin region and of all of us by virtue of the jobs and economic growth it underpins.