Dublin Airport (Passenger Capacity) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages
Dail Éireann — 2026-06-30
============================================================

Darragh O'Brien (FF), Dublin Fingal East

I thank the ten Deputies who have contributed to the debate so far. I will deal with the specific amendments first and a few of the other points. Some Deputies, such as Deputy Coppinger - not to pick her out - could have a look at the Second Stage speech. I outlined a lot of what we were talking about this evening on Second Stage. I will make a comment before I speak directly to the amendment but it is related. I know everyone in this House has an earnest and a well-held view about this. I think all of us agree that Dublin Airport is an important strategic asset for this State. That is the first thing. I will deal with regional as well because our regional airports are critically important for this country. By the way, it is not just those within the Republic. Derry and Belfast airports are on this island and are critically important. I will turn to regional development and the national aviation policy, which I clearly referenced in the Second Stage contribution.
If we take the airport as it operates right now, last year, 36.4 million passengers flew through Dublin Airport. A small percentage, approximately 1.7 million or so, transited through it. They are passenger numbers, not flights. That was said earlier on and I know Deputy Ahern probably misspoke on that. They were passenger numbers as opposed to flights. That is important too.
The ratio of passengers to jobs is about 1 million to 1,000. For every 1 million passengers, there are about 1,000 direct jobs. We have approximately 30,000 plus workers directly on campus and about 130,000 total between direct and indirect. I am speaking to amendment No. 1 to section 2, which is Deputy Ahern's amendment. Others have come into the House in a less constructive way, such as Deputies Murphy and Coppinger and others. We would be having a debate here, and rightly so, as to why we lost 4,000 direct jobs in the airport and 10,000 to 15,000 indirect jobs if we continued to operate it as it is now and did not try to address what is a legacy issue. To be fair, many Deputies recognised that as a legacy issue. There is an economic imperative here but there is a balanced approach.
There is the good neighbour policy that needs to be operated by DAA, the airport operator. I said that really clearly on Second Stage. I have grown up beside the airport. I represent an airport constituency. I know the benefits of living beside the airport by way of proximity. I know the challenges for members within my community and my constituency and other constituencies like Deputy O'Gorman's. That has to be done in a proper and appropriate way. I said clearly on Second Stage that this has not always been the case by the airport operators. On page 8 of the Bill, someone bemoaned the powers that may be given to the Minister. That might be a well-held view but it states, "The Minister may give a direction in writing to daa for any purpose relating to this Act, including, but not limited to-". I have said it clearly on a couple of things. I have written to the airport and intend for it to do things such as improving and expanding the noise insulation scheme. I do not think Deputy Coppinger knew about ANCA's decision at the time. That decision in relation to aircraft noise has been published for 14 weeks, which would have a significant bearing on the scale and the breadth of the noise insulation scheme.
I have put it on the record of the House here and directly to the DAA that the voluntary purchase scheme needs to be improved upon. There are people who have sold their homes under that scheme. It needs to be improved further. There are people, particularly on the western side, right on the airport campus, whose homes I visited. For others to make any suggestion that I have not met residents' groups is simply untrue. Again, that charge was made by Deputies Murphy and Coppinger. It is not true. Formally, I have had three separate meetings with three groups over the course of the past 12 to 18 months, listening to them directly. I represent residents and constituents who work in the airport as well as those who have issues with noise. I meet them and engage with them all the time, so what they said is simply not true.
There is a responsibility to balance sustainable growth at the airport, supporting the jobs in the airport and supporting the potential to grow further jobs and further routes.
On flight paths, I said very clearly on Second Stage - not on foot of a proposal from anyone else but I welcome the main Opposition party looking at this - that an independent assessment of flight paths will happen. We need it to happen because, as Deputy O'Rourke said, there are people, including in north County Dublin, who saw applications made for certain flight paths that were granted and were not adhered to. I will not say too much because that was a matter for a retention application as well. When you plan forward, you have to try to be very clear with people. Yes, I want the airport to grow. I want the good jobs that are in the airport to be supported and I want the reality of ensuring that happens in a sustainable way.
I think it was Deputy Farrelly who mentioned SHDs and going over the head of local authorities. I agree absolutely - that is why as housing Minister I got rid of SHDs - but this legislation specifically references that we are protecting the existing infrastructure application in there. We are not overriding the application that has still not been heard. I take the Deputy’s point and am not dismissing it at all but, in line with the legal advice we had, fundamentally the policy direction that I wanted was to protect that application that is there because it has gone through a number of iterations by way of public consultation right the way through.
It is a complicated decision-making structure between the aircraft noise competent authority, ANCA, and Fingal County Council. I was in this Chamber in the Opposition debating this when it was the subject of a Bill in 2018. I actually supported the Bill but managed to get some changes to it - parts of it were a halfway house – and on foot of that we have commenced the review of where planning should sit for an airport into the future, as a strategic asset, how the noise authority interacts with the local authority and all those different things. There were people in the Fingal area at the time, as I am sure Deputy O’Gorman will know, who were not happy with ANCA sitting within Fingal County Council even though it is an independent organisation. There were people who had concerns about that. I commend ANCA on the work it does. It operates very well and has protected the independence it has had.
I mention that because these were points that were made during debates, genuine concerns that may have been raised, that have not come to pass. That is not to dismiss any of the points that have been made here either, because this is just the first iteration of this. When I say it will protect the existing application, that application, if granted, would supersede any order I would make. Again, that is clearly set down in the legislation. If it is refused, my order stays in place. How do I make the order? This question has been raised by many TDs here, and especially Deputies Ahern and O’Gorman have raised it in relation to environmental considerations. It is clearly set out in the Bill. I will not be doing the assessments. The full environmental impact assessment will be done in line with an EIA directive, which will identify, describe and assess the direct and indirect significant effects of making an order on several factors including climate. That will be independently undertaken prior to the making of the order. An Coimisiún Pleanála will do that and I have set out a timeframe.
Any charge that we are setting aside any environmental considerations is absolutely not true. I will not prejudice the outcome of that assessment, which I will consider fully before making an order. I have made it clear that even though international aviation emissions are outside the scope of the climate action plan, which is a fact, we are taking actions that are aligned with the global approach to decarbonisation in the aviation sector. That is the element in relation to this. We are not setting aside climate obligations, climate assessments or environmental impact assessments. That is not correct. We are protecting the original planning application. That is being done and I have said that very clearly. It does give the Minister of the day the power to seek an application from the DAA for further increases.
I am glad Deputy Murphy is back. I referred to him earlier - not in a derogatory way, I might add - in relation to his comment that the Bill has been rushed or not considered. There were ten weeks of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is a planning condition going back to 2007 and 2008. It is something that has been kicked around for a long time and has never been dealt with. Those pre-legislative scrutiny hearings were open to any Deputy to go and make his or her case or point of view.

---

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/dail/2026-06-30/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-09-14T01:01:06+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-06-30