Darragh O'Brien: Dublin Airport Passenger Capacity Bill 2026

I move the Bill now be read a second time and I'm pleased to introduce the Dublin Airport Passenger Capacity Bill 2026 for the consideration of the House. The main purpose of the 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 Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport who received a considerable number of submissions from a wide range of stakeholders. The Committee held several hearings to ensure that the views from all interested parties were heard and I have taken on board the recommendations of the Committee in so far as possible in finalising the text of this 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 here today will allow for the continued sustainable development of Dublin Airport whilst 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 last year. As such there are a number of recognised risks around the passenger cap planning condition remaining in place. Firstly, 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. Secondly, it will stifle continued growth, undermine our ambitious hub strategy for the airport and negatively impact our economy in terms of business, trade and tourism. And very negatively impact as well on the jobs that the airport underpins, about 130,000 direct and indirect jobs in Dublin Airport. Airlines need certainty to plan for future schedules and the continued existence of the cap creates only uncertainty which can be expected to continue to affect the choices that airlines make about serving 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 Uncommissioned Planola when it was on board Planola back in 2007 as part of its permission for granting Terminal 2 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 has been a significant upgrade in terms of local road access and public transport offerings to and from the airport since then. Very significantly as well at Ascome Cora, members will know that we have a full clean planning permission on Metrolink and that Metrolink construction will start next year. DAA has the statutory responsibility for the management, operation and development of Dublin Airport and it is their responsibility to engage with the relevant planning authorities to ensure that the planning permission is in place to facilitate the future development of the airport. DAA submitted its infrastructure application to the relevant planning authority, which is Fingal County Council, in December of 2023 and that sought to increase the passenger cap to 40 million passengers per annum and seeking permission, very importantly, for the development of a suite of infrastructure projects at the airport to facilitate that passenger growth. This planning application is currently under consideration by Fingal and as part of the process in place for the development of the airport since the enactment of the Aircraft Noise Regulation Act 2019, a draft noise-related regulatory decision was published by the competent authority, it being 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 into the planning decision by Fingal County Council, which is expected very shortly thereafter. It is, however, likely that any planning decision by Fingal may then be appealed to Uncommissioned Panola and may also be subject to a 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 the connectivity to and from our country is not undermined. I'd now like to say, colleagues, through the main provisions of the Bill that empower me, as the Minister for Transport, to make an order to amend or revoke the passenger cap planning condition. Part one, and it's the very first thing I want to 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 numbers of passengers that 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 the PLS 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 DEA for any purpose related to the Bill. I may use this power to procure information from DEA in relation to an application, to ensure the preparation and submission of appropriate reports relating to the environmental assessments, or to initiate the application process, which is a very important provision. In such directions, I may specify the period and the form in which information should be provided, and DEA has a legal obligation to comply with any such direction. Part 2 of the Bill provides that DEA may make an application for the making of an order under this legislation. That application from DEA 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 with any person I consider appropriate. If I am satisfied that there is a justification to make an order, I will notify DEA of my intention to do so, and direct it to prepare an environmental impact assessment report and an Atura impact statement. I have the power to accept, vary or refuse that application from DEA. Part 3 of the Bill covers sections 8 to 23, and that provides for an environmental impact assessment and appropriate assessment that will be undertaken independently of me as Minister. On Commissioning, Panola will carry out the assessments under the Habitats Directive and under 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 a provision, though, for a further 30-day 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 assessments and come to a reasonable conclusion in relation to the environmental impacts of making an order and a determination as to whether or not 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 encouraging, so far 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 set down in this Bill. The Commission will notify me of its findings arising from the environmental assessments and publish its reasoned conclusions and determination. Part 4 of the Bill sets out the parameters around making the order by me, and that an order will be superseded by a planning decision on the DEA's infrastructure application. Under section 24 of the Bill, I am prohibited from making an order until the environmental assessments have been carried out. I believe that provision addresses some concerns that were raised during the pre-legislative scrutiny about the public being excluded from the process. This is not the case, and at least one period of public consultation in relation to the environmental impacts of making an order will take place. Under section 25 of the Bill, I am empowered to make an order to amend or, indeed, to revoke the passenger cap, where I am of the opinion that the passenger cap is causing harm to the economy of the state, to international connectivity and to Ireland's reputation in respect of air transport. In making an order, I will consider and take account of the outcome of the environmental assessments that would have been 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 exempt to 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 Ayrshire Fagool, and inform Fingal County Council, who are 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 infrastructure to accommodate that future growth. Therefore, in preparation of this legislation, one of the key objectives was to protect the 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, not withstanding the making of the order. Section 26 sets out the effect of an order as it relates to that planning application, giving that both deal with the same planning condition, which is the £32 million passenger cap. In short, once a final decision is made in relation to the 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 JOR 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 again that arose from the Committee for a sunset clause to be introduced. Part 5 of the Bill, which covers Section 27-35, sets out the judicial review procedures, and the validity of an order made under this legislation or an alleged failure to carry out a function under the legislation may be challenged by way of judicial review. An application for leave to apply for a JOR must be taken within eight weeks and the applicant must have sufficient interest in the matter. Part 6 of the Bill provides for amendments to the Planning and Development Act. Under these amendments, Fingal County Council and the Commissioning Panola 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 of 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 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. Finally, Section 39 of the Bill provides a derogation from Section 15.1 of the Climate and Low Carbon Development Act of 2015. I want to explain a couple of reasons as to why that is the case. Firstly, the passenger cap is not a targeted climate measure, and secondly, international aviation emissions are excluded from the Climate Action Plan. As such, this provides clarity as to the application of the Act to the actions that are under this specific legislation. As I mentioned last concord at the beginning of my statement, we are an island nation. We cannot ignore the strategic importance of Dublin Airport to our economy and the serious harm that would be caused to the economy and to our people and to international connectivity or to international reputation of the state by failing to be in a position not to facilitate future growth. But the current level of passengers and cargo remain at our international gateway. The legislation I am proposing today will not only allow us to ensure the sustainable development of the airport, but 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. What I would say, colleagues, we are dealing here with a legacy issue. The Dublin Airport passenger cap does not serve this state well. It does not serve the people of the region well. I want the airport to grow on a sustainable basis, and I want the airport to operate as a good neighbour. I am someone who has grown up beside the airport my whole life and has lived there. I know the tens of thousands of people who 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, as I said, not only derive an income there, but are at the leading edge of aviation, not just in Ireland, but indeed across Europe and across the globe. This piece of legislation is critical to ensure that we can grow our Dublin Airport in a sustainable manner that ensures and enshrines public consultation within it, but that 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 that gives the Minister of the Day the power to preclude the imposition of further caps, but indeed 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 right the way across the House. I thank the Joint Oireachtas Committee and the members of the committee, under the chairpersonship of Michael Murphy, for the work that they have done in this regard. We have reflected many of the recommendations from the pre-legislative scrutiny and that report in the Bill that I bring before the House. This Bill is of strategic importance. It is urgent that it be passed. That is why I thank the House for their consideration today of second stage and look forward to moving this to conclusion next week.