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

Sentiment score: 0.10