Dublin Airport (Passenger Capacity) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-08
============================================================

Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland

I move amendment No. 10:
In page 24, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“(d) the State’s obligations under national, European Union or international law relating to climate change.”.
In this Bill the Minister is setting out and giving himself the powers to amend or revoke the passenger capacity conditions, to change the passenger capacity, "where the Minister is of the opinion that the passenger capacity condition [causes] or would be likely to cause serious harm to ... the economy of the State ... international connectivity, or ... the international reputation of the State in respect of air transport." The fundamental driving factor in making his decisions and changing the numbers is this idea that it does harm to the economy of State, our connectivity or reputation. That is why we have heard the purported potential doublings or any other figures that are there. It is set up with a set of criteria that are ambiguous when we talk about the issue of the economy and the fines spoken about by Senator Conway and others. That is one thing. It is also kind of wild that we are putting forward this money somebody or particular companies could be making as potentially constituting economic harm to the State. Is that the framing? That is framed in terms where the absence of maximising the making of money is an economic harm.
However, actual measurable, knowable documented harm is being done by an increase in aviation traffic for economic reasons only. We know that aviation emissions drive climate change, emissions and move us past that 1.5°C liveable planet increase and into the 2°C and beyond. We all know that climate change is accountable for the fact that there are lots of places to which nobody wants to fly any more because they are over 40°C for three or four months of the year. There are places which are not just uncomfortable but are unlivable in parts of the world due to climate change. That very real physical harm is done by the increase in our emissions, which is being done without proper regard to section 15 of the climate Act, because that has been removed. That is not a factor. The Minister is not providing for it. There is an environmental impact assessment with a question over how it is operated but that is a sub-element that may be added on to the Minister enacting the decision. The decision itself does not include any environmental criteria. The decision to make the order, about what kind of harm matters, does not include any environmental factors at all.
My amendments would simply be that when the Minister is making an order to change the passenger cap, one of the kinds of harm he might be thinking about would be if there is harm to the State's obligation under national European law or international law relating to climate change, or if there is harm to meeting the State's obligations under the Paris Agreement. I put that in as an additional approach because there are our national laws, which, sadly, can only capture internal flights, the European laws, with the current trading system, which only captures intra-European flights, and then the international space, where there is a gap for a proper measuring or accounting system regarding flights that leave Europe and go elsewhere. It was meant to be delivered by 2027 but there is a question about how it will be delivered. Some of the major countries where flights will be going, or one in particular, the United States, have even left the Paris Agreement.
That is why I have a second amendment that cuts through our national European law and international law, and also reminds us of our obligations under the Paris Agreement. Our obligations under the Paris Agreement are not just that we should be doing everything we can to keep emissions below 1.5°C and 2°C, at this liveable level. There are also obligations under the Paris Agreement of common but differentiated responsibilities. The fact is that countries which have historically higher emissions have used up more than their fair share of the available space in an atmosphere that is filling up with emissions, in a limited global commons, in which the wriggle room we have before it is unlivable is limited. We have already taken our fair share and the Minister wants to take more. When he talks about adding emissions into the mix, and how there is potential for economic measures, and there is money we could be making which we will not make if we do not do this, and one stacks that up against countries which have done almost nothing to drive climate change and have far lower emissions than us historically, maybe that remaining space is things that they need in order to actually transition, put in place basic state infrastructures such as the sewage systems that they will need as they adapt to climate catastrophe, and all of those things.
Maybe the remaining space in our collective global atmosphere is not something that we should be using up. We should have a rationale for using it any time we say it would be bad for money-making if we do not do this and maybe our global responsibilities for climate and environment should take priority. In that scenario, then maybe not this Minister, but perhaps a theoretical future Minister, may even look to the order and say we need to slightly adjust our passenger capacity conditions. I will be clear about things like international connectivity and the fact that we are on an island. I get that. I get that Ireland will not move away totally from aviation but what we should be doing is doing it responsibly. We should be giving, at a minimum, equal regard to the environmental factors as we do to the money-making potential. That is why amendment No. 10 inserts our national, European and international laws on climate change, and amendment No. 11 relates to the State's obligations under the Paris Agreement. Amendment No. 12 is trying to insert into the mechanisms that the Minister can make a variation here.
I am trying to introduce some link, even as the Government tries to cut the links between climate action, and its infrastructure, the cap, and LNG, and a whole pile of things that it says will happen and do not involve the climate Act any more. They will still involve emissions and still have the climate impacts, so I am trying to reinsert a thread whereby the Climate Change Advisory Council would be empowered to at least recommend to the Minister that there be a review where there is an opinion that the passenger capacity is causing serious harm to the State's ability to meet our national climate objectives.
The Minister has been shaking his head while I was speaking. This is the most real thing. There is nothing more real than the fact that we are living on a planet and there are physical, scientific factors at play. When you go to 40°C, it is pretty hard for an economy to keep going. When you go to 45°C, it gets harder again. Climate change is the most real thing. It gets treated as an abstraction or an add-on, or that we found a way around it, or are cutting it off here. This is physical reality, and I am appealing to the Minister to factor it in to the serious harm that he is meant to be considering when he is deciding to put passenger numbers up or down.

---

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