Barry Ward: Warns lifting Dublin Airport cap risks climate targets

Minister, I broadly welcome this Bill. I think, however, it is 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 which we see today as we all schlep around here in suits sweating the consequences of climate change. So I do have reservations about the setting aside de facto 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. I do think it's problematic to entirely throw out responsibility in that regard and I'd like to hear from the Minister what safeguards you have put in place to deal with that because 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. We do rely on air transport to get people on and off the island and to get goods in and out of the country. So I recognise the reality of the situation. I recognise the fact that steps have to be taken. I mean, reference has been made by many speakers in this debate to the growth of over 40% in terms of passenger accommodation in the airport of over, I think, 36.4 million people in the airport last year. That's entirely predictable in circumstances where our population has grown by over a million in the last less than 10 years. So we know the country is growing. It makes sense, therefore, that the cap would also grow. You cannot have a situation where the country is getting bigger and bigger in terms of population and by extension for the demand for air transport and not reflect that in terms of the changes that are being made to the cap. So I accept the necessity for this. I also think when you look at air transport in other European countries, that there is not the same restriction on the airports in other European capitals, for example, as there might be in Dublin. It doesn't mean you'd throw the baby out of the bathwater. It doesn't mean that you say that there should be no limits and there should be no control. And I know that the bill doesn't say there's no control, and I know there's procedures for orders by ministers and all the rest, but I'm just sounding a note of caution in relation to the complete removal of the restriction. And I just wonder about where the trade-off is because it doesn't remove our obligations in terms of meeting climate targets, in terms of meeting emissions reductions targets. So 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? And we know that emissions from the airport have increased with the increased air transport in and out. Again, I recognise there 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 don't let the situation of emissions completely run away with itself and leave ourselves and I suppose by extension everybody else on the planet in a very, very difficult position? So I would love to hear a comprehensive answer to that question. I'm not sure it's an easy question to answer in fairness to you, but I do think that we need to keep a check on our progression towards emissions targets and how we're going to manage that. I don't have a difficulty with increasing air traffic in and out of the airport. I think that is a necessity. It is a reflection of the reality, but therefore we must look at some other sector where we can reduce it. And you'll be aware, Minister, that there are other sectors where we're not making targets and we're not making the emissions reductions we need to make. So let's actually have that grown-up conversation, recognising the reality, what are we going to do in the other areas to ensure that we don't just let the whole thing get away from us? Because that is a real danger now and we can see the effects of climate change in real terms, not just with hot weather, but also with stormy weather and with the effects that global warming generally has on weather systems and the risk that we face as a country and as a world in terms of what those emissions are going to do. So that is my primary concern. As I say, in principle I don't have a problem with this, but I do have a problem with the notion that we just scrap our realistic attempt to meet our climate ambitions and our emissions reductions. If I can make some other general comments on the Bill, I do think it's a very well put together Bill, but I do have some issues with it. The first is this DAA, Dublin Airport Authority, in small letters. That is a branding function of Dublin Airport. They have created, they trade as DAA. In statutory terms, my understanding looking at Section 2 of the State Airports Act 2004, it's DAA, Dublin Airport Authority, with capital D, capital A and capital A. I don't see where that's changed anywhere in legislation. I'm open to correction in that regard. But replete through this Bill is small letters, which is a branding function of Dublin Airport. It's like when the Child and Family Agency suddenly became TUSLA. Nobody actually authorised that in statute. It is the Child and Family Agency that is routinely referred to by its marketing name, which is TUSLA. That's all very well, but I just wonder about that in the context of a statutory piece of legislation that's going through these houses. The reference to DAA is defined in the Bill as Dublin Airport Authority, the company that is, but I don't think that it's appropriate to refer to it by only small capitals in the marketing term. Secondly, if I could make reference to the 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 grants, which is a much higher bar than is usually required for judicial review. Similarly, in Section 30, Subsection 2, it removes permission for the applicant to amend the grounds on which leave was granted, which is, by the way, 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. Now, this is part of a broader government attitude to judicial review, and I understand judicial review is a pain. I understand it obstructs things. I understand that it can delay things, but it is also a constitutional right of the citizens of this state to go to the courts to review the decisions, the administered decisions of the government, of departments and of other agencies, and it's an important right. I don't know about the constitutionality of curtailing that right in the way that it's being curtailed in Sections 29 and 30, for example. I think it would be much better if we're concerned about the length of time it takes to bring judicial review, to actually invest in speeding up the process in the courts, investing in something akin to what was done in the commercial court over 20 years ago, invest in more judges, invest in more resources for the court service, so that people can still have their opportunity to challenge decisions and do so in a real and meaningful way under the constitution, but to do so in a faster and more efficient way. So I recognise it's a problem, but the answer is not to curtail the rights of citizens to challenge the decisions, the administered 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 have been really thought through from the point of view that it curtails citizens' rights.