Dublin Airport (Passenger Capacity) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-08 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland The Minister suggested that there would not be dilution of the environmental regulation, but there is. Section 18 is explicitly about the disapplication of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011. It states: A proposal or an order made under section 25(1) [that is a proposal or order made to adjust or increase the amount of the cap and change the numbers that are massing through the airport] shall not constitute an activity or a project within the meaning of Regulation 2 of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations. The name of the section is literally "Disapplication of regulations". We have kind of wooly substitutions for that. Section 17 states that the Commission shall, in performing its functions, "take appropriate steps … insofar as such disturbance could be significant having regard to the objectives of the Habitats Directive". There is a bit of having regard to the Commission. Under section 19, the Minister may apply for an appropriate assessment or ask for a Natura impact statement to be done. At a fundamental level, the disapplication of the regulations – the EU rules which would apply, separate from whatever wooly measures the phrase "have regard to" covers in sections 17 and 19 - could not be seen as anything less than a dilution. This is part of another significant environmentally impactful component which we are going to come to later. Of course, the Bill is being guillotined. As a result, we may not get the opportunity to come to it later. It is positioned in the very final section of the Bill, namely section 39, and is a modification of the application of section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. Again, the idea is that the Minister and the Commission, when performing their functions, will not be subject to the requirements of section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act and having regard to the likely consequences for the economy of the State and for international connectivity. Basically, the Minister is trying to modify and disapply the obligations that obtain under the climate Act. He literally has a section on the disapplication of regulations under the birds and habitats directives. We are setting up for a situation of environmental non-accountability. That can be the environment in which the community is being spoken about or operating in, and they are not just working but living in, which many of them care about as well. It also has an impact on our environment. Depending on when the guillotine falls, I hope we will have an opportunity to come back to this, but disapplying the checks and balances and the tools we have has an extraordinarily negative consequence. This part of Dublin is also a big horticultural area. Where is the consideration of the habitats directive and the birds directive? They must be factored in too. We also look to the fact of aviation emissions being a massive factor in the kind of climate breakdown that we are seeing globally. They are not adequately captured. It is already a bit of weird black box whereby in the context of our national emissions, we are only capturing internal flights. On the European trading scheme, we are capturing flights within Europe and there is no capturing, except for the IPCC when it produces its now annual reports telling us that we are heading off a cliff. It is the only one capturing the global piece because there is not a global mechanism of accountability. That was meant to be coming in 2027, but, of course, countries like America have left the Paris Agreement. There are all these places that the flights will be going to, where we do not know how the emissions are being measured or what the impacts will be, but what we do know is that by disapplying section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act, we are trying to make sure that the Minister and the Commission do not have to think about the Paris Agreement or the ultimate objective, which is to keep our planet livable. It was 1.5°C; it will now be 2°C if we are lucky. There is a significant environmental dilution here. With respect, if we are in a period when we should be looking to have a just transition, it is not simply a matter of saying I can tag a number and say there are jobs in this. There are lots of jobs in it. We need jobs in the areas that are going to be sustainable, properly environmentally monitored that will deliver for us so that we can ensure people can both work and live on a safe and fair planet. That is the piece that needs investment rather than throwing in the numbers of the persons who may get the downstream jobs when we know the major beneficiaries of this are a handful of small business owners who have had a very successful lobbying campaign. They are the major beneficiaries in respect of this. The cost, including the cost in terms of the fines, if we look at the money side of it, that will be paid, are the costs that will be paid by the public for Ireland failing to meet its targets. Those are the straight financial costs. Whether or not the Minister disapplies the climate Act we still have to hit the same targets and that will have to come from somewhere else. Some other sector will have to step up or else we will have to pay fines, or more significantly the costs that are paid globally for a kind of reckless acceleration in emissions at a time when we should be shifting our approach. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-07-08/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:10+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-07-08