The purpose of today’s meeting is to resume our pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the airport passenger Bill. On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to welcome: Mr. Ian Talbot, chief executive, and Mr. Aebhric McGibney, director of public and international affairs, Chambers Ireland; Mr. Eoghan O'Mara Walsh, CEO, Irish Tourism Industry Confederation, ITIC; Mr. Mark Christal, executive director and chief client officer, and Mr. Enda McDonnell, manager strategy and policy department, Enterprise Ireland; Ms Breda O'Sullivan, head of corporate strategy, planning and strategic policy, and Mr. Shay Power, head of strategic policy, IDA Ireland; and Mr. Paul Gallagher, chief executive officer, Irish Hotels Federation.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I will call the witnesses to make their opening statements in the following order: Chambers Ireland, Irish Tourism Industry Confederation, Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland and, last but by no means the least, the Irish Hotels Federation.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the invitation to appear here today. I am joined by my colleague, Aebhric McGibney, of Dublin Chamber. We share a united interest in the successful passage of this legislation to lift the airport cap.

Chambers Ireland represents a network of 36 affiliated chambers nationwide, from microenterprises and SMEs to large indigenous firms and multinationals. Our shared priorities include Ireland’s connectivity to trade, attracting talent and investment, and competing internationally. As an island on the western edge of Europe, our economy depends on access to global markets and the opportunities that creates. This dependence requires careful choices and balanced compromises.

We support removing the cap. It is as an artificial constraint, rooted in a legacy planning condition which no longer reflects Ireland’s economic needs or the role of our national airport. My statement is structured around five key points. The first point is the constraint on competitiveness. By limiting capacity at our primary international gateway, it restricts route development and reduces frequency and choice while creating uncertainty for airlines and businesses. For firms we represent across the country, this means harder access to markets, higher costs and weaker connectivity when Ireland is competing globally for investment, talent and tourism. No other Irish airport operates under a comparable passenger restriction and, internationally, it signals our connectivity is constrained. Maintaining the cap disadvantages Ireland versus competitor economies in the UK and Europe that actively enable their hub airports to grow with demand. From a business perspective, that is not a neutral policy choice; it actively holds back economic activity and growth.

The second point is on exports and trade. We are one of the most open economies in the world. Our model depends on fast, reliable access to international markets and Dublin Airport plays a central role in that ecosystem. This matters even more amid recent geopolitical volatility and ongoing negotiations on new and emerging EU trade agreements. A recent report by our colleagues in Eurochambres found that trade policy uncertainty from tariffs, trade wars and other protectionist measures significantly harms European business interests, with export-oriented countries like Ireland systemically more exposed. We have been strong advocates for progressing EU trade deals with Mercosur, Australia and India to expand market access and to help businesses to capitalise on these opportunities. Our transport infrastructure must match that ambition. Demand exists for new routes. A binding passenger cap at our main gateway is fundamentally at odds with an outward-looking trade strategy.

Turning to my third point, sustainability and the sustainable development goals, SDGs, we fully recognise Ireland’s climate obligations and the importance of sustainable development. We advocate for goal 13, climate action, as a key priority, as well as goal 8, decent work and economic growth, and goal 9, industry, innovation and infrastructure. It is getting about the balance right here and the airport cap has not been helped by delays in delivering MetroLink, for example. Removing the passenger cap does not mean removing environmental oversight. The general scheme of the Bill explicitly provides for environmental assessment and compliance with EU law. From our perspective, constraining capacity through an arbitrary cap is not an effective climate policy tool. Meaningful emissions reductions in aviation will come from technology, sustainable fuels, fleet renewal and international co-ordination.

My fourth point, national infrastructure, is that Dublin Airport is critical for supporting over 116,000 jobs and contributes approximately €10 billion in gross value added annually. It is our primary international gateway and only true hub airport. Regional airports play an important and complementary role, but they cannot substitute for the capacity and connectivity Dublin provides. It is not a zero-sum debate. Constraining Dublin does not automatically redirect traffic to other airports in Ireland. Airline route decisions are driven by demand, connectivity and commercial viability.

My fifth point is on policy coherence. Removing the airport cap is a commitment in the programme for Government. Progressing this legislation is therefore an economic necessity and a test of policy consistency and delivery. Businesses value certainty that Government commitments will be followed through and that infrastructure policy aligns with economic strategy.

In conclusion, we believe that lifting the cap is necessary, proportionate and overdue. It would remove an unnecessary barrier to competitiveness, support exports and trade, align infrastructure policy with sustainability objectives and recognise Dublin Airport’s role as critical national infrastructure. We urge the committee to progress this legislation and we look forward to further engagement.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the committee for the opportunity to be here today to speak on this important matter. I am here on behalf of the Irish Tourism Industry Confederation, ITIC, which is the representative group for Irish tourism business interests. Our member organisations straddle all aspects of the sector, from aviation right through to hotels, attractions, cultural experiences, hospitality providers and so much more.

Tourism is critical to the Irish economy. It is the largest indigenous industry and biggest regional employer we have. CSO figures show that 225,000 people are employed in the sector and it is particularly important to regional Ireland. The sector is worth nearly €9 billion annually and it is an enormous net contributor to the Exchequer with 29 cent of every €1 returned to the national coffers in tourism-related taxes. The reason I say this is because 70% of the Irish tourism economy depends on international visitation. It is self-evident that as an island nation, air access is vital.

Ireland's tourism and aviation sectors are intrinsically linked and mutually interdependent. Tourism relies on aviation to bring in visitors and airlines rely on tourism to fill seats. We argue that the prompt removal of Dublin Airport’s passenger cap is critical if we are to deliver the 50% revenue growth for Irish tourism that is the Government’s goal by 2031. In our view, the passenger cap at Dublin Airport is a historic anachronism that needs to be urgently removed. If the passenger cap were to be enforced, it would mean a reduction of approximately 4.4 million passengers through Dublin Airport. That is over 12% of current traffic. This would have a profound impact on Irish tourism, resulting in lost earnings of over €1 billion to the sector.

The general scheme rightly recognises the need to lift the passenger cap at Dublin Airport. The tourism impact of artificially restricting our national hub airport is felt right across the country. This is not a Dublin issue; it is an Ireland issue. The passenger cap is a real and material danger to Irish tourism as well as the national economy and we urge all concerned to work together to quickly pass and enact legislation to resolve the situation. Removing the uncertainty surrounding Dublin Airport will encourage connections to currently under-served destinations and countries, opening new opportunities for Irish tourism. This is particularly important given the geopolitical and macroeconomic uncertainty that abounds, and the need for Irish tourism to market-diversify.

The cap upsets the equilibrium of demand and supply and is proven to damage Irish competitiveness, causing higher fares. This was evident just 12 months ago when the cap was enforced for the winter period and resulted in fares on European routes at Dublin Airport increasing by 13% year-on-year, the highest of all the top 80 airports in Europe. Traffic through Dublin Airport during that period fell by 3%.

Hopefully, the argument to lift the passenger cap speaks for itself. We in the tourism industry are not ignoring the environmental challenge and acknowledge aviation’s need to decarbonise. Thankfully, progress is happening on this front, both in the skies and on the ground, and this needs the full commitment from all stakeholders.

I should stress that timing is absolutely critical at this point. The general scheme provides the Minister with the power to revoke or amend the planning condition, but that power only takes effect once the legislation is enacted and commenced and a ministerial order is issued. Any delay materially increases the risk of enforced capacity restrictions and I am acutely conscious of that in respect of summer 2027.

To date, severe cuts on seat capacity at Dublin Airport have been avoided only because of legal proceedings initiated by airlines. A judgment relating to this is expected from the European Court of Justice within months and the duration of the current stay is therefore uncertain. It is quite possible that the rigid enforcement of the cap could come back into play, resulting in sharp capacity cuts next year, thereby damaging tourism and trade interests. We strongly emphasise to the committee the need to act quickly on this matter. Legislation must be prioritised and expedited.

In our view, it is urgent and essential that the Government makes good on its commitment to resolve the Dublin Airport passenger cap for the benefit of Ireland as well as Irish tourism. I am happy to take any questions on the matter.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the invitation to address and engage with the joint committee today. Enterprise Ireland welcomes the opportunity to assist the committee and its ongoing work with regard to the general scheme of the Dublin Airport (passenger capacity) Bill. We are pleased to provide additional context and information which might be helpful to the work of the committee.

Enterprise Ireland is a State agency responsible for supporting Irish companies to start, scale and win business in global markets. These companies employ over 230,000 people, spread across all regions, and they are central to balanced regional development and sustained export-led growth. We welcome the opportunity to provide an overview of our work and the steps we are taking to support Irish-owned exporters to achieve their global ambitions and how international connectivity relates to our remit.

We have launched our five-year strategy, Delivering for Ireland, Leading Globally. Our long-term ambition under that strategy is that Irish-owned exporting companies will become the primary driver of the Irish economy. Our strategy focuses on four key pillars: to start, to compete, to scale and to connect.

By the end of 2029, we are targeting employment in our client base to reach 275,000; exports from these companies to reach €50 billion; over 1,000 new start-up companies; a €2.2 billion spend on research, development and innovation; 1,700 new exporters; and a focus on new markets, including the UK, where our ambition is to achieve €14.5 billion in exports, and the US, where we are targeting €8.5 billion in exports. We are also focused on sustainability goals, including CO2 emissions reductions of 35% in supported companies by 2030. We would like to see a total spend across the economy of €55 billion, with the full economic impacts of that expenditure.

Enterprise Ireland works with approximately 4,500 companies which are exporting or are in the early stages of their exporting journey. These companies span technology, manufacturing and internationally traded services. We also support high potential start-up companies, which are predominantly highly innovative enterprises.

We are a global team of more than 800 people working across ten offices in Ireland and 42 international offices, providing companies with financial and non-financial business development supports at all stages of their exporting journey.

Our Irish-owned exporters continue to demonstrate their agility, resilience and appetite for new growth. Members will be aware that the current global environment is extremely challenging. Irish exporters have already faced several major challenges and disruptions over the past decade, for example, Brexit, the pandemic, and energy and supply-chain shocks. Despite this, exports across our client base have doubled, from €18.6 billion in 2014 to a record €36.75 billion in 2024. Exports to Europe reached €12.7 billion in 2024, overtaking the UK for the first time. Client exports to the UK exceeded €10 billion for the first time.

Employment has also risen, from 180,000 in 2014 to approximately 232,000 last year. In 2025 alone, EI-supported companies created more than 15,000 new jobs, 69% of which were outside Dublin. In 2024, there was €42 billion in direct expenditure in the Irish economy by client companies, made up of wages and salaries and sourcing good and services in the domestic economy.

A key theme of Government policy in recent years has been market diversification, reducing exposure to any single geography and ensuring Irish companies can grow in Europe, North America and newer, high-potential markets. This point is central to the Government's market diversification strategy, which emphasises that Irish firms must have the capability to broaden their international footprint and manage external shocks. As outlined in the action plan, "it is important for Ireland to play to our strengths as an open trading nation by re-doubling our long-established relationships with established markets and striking up new relationships with newer, high-growth markets."

For our client companies, connectivity directly affects their commercial operations. Many companies depend on frequent, reliable and cost-competitive travel to meet customers and business partners, maintain contracts, provide services, attend trade events, secure investment and manage supply chains. Optimised access to world markets is essential for Irish exporting businesses to be able to engage with opportunities in those markets.

In practical terms, fewer routes, reduced frequency or higher fares will impact on Irish exporters' ability to compete with competitor companies. While Irish exporters have shown resilience over many years, and notwithstanding significant current geopolitical tensions, their further progress depends on their ability to reach global markets without capacity-driven constraints.

Within current national priorities, ensuring Ireland continues to enhance its international connectivity is important for the ongoing growth of Enterprise Ireland clients. An island economy depends on reliable, competitive links to international destinations. Strong air connectivity underpins Irish enterprise growth and sustains exports. In the current context, every policy lever is required to support Irish companies in these growth ambitions.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and committee members for the invitation to speak with the committee today about the importance of Dublin Airport to the attraction and retention of foreign direct investment, FDI, in Ireland. I am the divisional manager of corporate strategy and policy in IDA Ireland and I am joined by my colleague Shay Power who is our policy manager in the strategic policy division.

IDA Ireland is the State agency, under the auspices of the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, tasked with attracting and retaining FDI and focused on building sustainable partnerships with client companies that support economic opportunities for Ireland. The agency works with companies throughout their investment journey, from early-stage research and site selection through to embedding, expansion and reinvestment.

IDA Ireland targets new and existing clients for investment, focusing on core sectors for FDI in which Ireland has an established base and a proven investment proposition – technology, international financial services, pharmaceuticals, medical technologies, engineering and the green economy. The economic and employment impact of the 1,800 client company operations in the portfolio remains at record levels. Employment in these companies increased by 1.5% year on year in 2025 to 312,400 people. Annual client expenditure on payroll, Irish materials and Irish services totalled over €40 billion in 2024, with a further €12.8 billion spent on capital expenditure projects.

IDA Ireland's 2025 to 2029 strategy, Adapt Intelligently, aims to enhance Ireland's economic performance by securing new investments and supporting existing companies in transforming, innovating and expanding their Irish operations. Targets for the strategy include securing 1,000 investments; securing 55% of all investments for regional locations; driving €7 billion in new research and development, R&D, spending; creating 75,000 new jobs and upskilling 40,000 people; reducing IDA client carbon emissions by 35%; and supporting €250 billion in economic activity over five years.

In the first year of the strategy, IDA Ireland secured 323 investments, which was a record number, with significant capital committed to research and innovation, sustainability and talent development. Notably, 57% of the investments went to regional locations in line with our strategic focus on maximising regional opportunities. IDA clients that have invested in the regions in 2025 include GE Healthcare, Datavant, Tricentis, Cook Medical, Ericsson, Canto, Kappture, Kirchhoff Ireland, IBM and Hollister. Dublin continues to remain a leading location for FDI for Ireland's proposition for innovative and talent driven investments. For example, Sony Interactive Entertainment, PayPal and Workday announced significant investments in artificial intelligence, AI, research and development last year.

Ireland's strong FDI performance in 2025 reflects the country's resilience and continued competitiveness and attractiveness for FDI. However, in an era of intense global competition for FDI investment we cannot become complacent. While international factors are largely outside of our control, we can shape the domestic factors that are critical to Ireland's ability to succeed by ensuring policy certainty and an enabling environment.

Dublin Airport is Ireland's primary international gateway. As an island economy with a strong reliance on internationally traded sectors, our economic model depends on reliable, high-quality and scalable international air connectivity. This relates directly to our ability to attract, retain and grow FDI, which, as outlined, supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and a substantial proportion of Ireland's exports and tax base.

In our written submission to the committee, IDA Ireland outlined that the existing 32 million passenger cap has become an operational constraint. The Dublin Airport Authority has indicated that it must actively restrict passenger throughput to remain compliant with planning conditions and this restriction is already influencing airline route planning and capacity decisions. This matters because confidence in long-term international connectivity is a critical factor for multinational companies. Senior management travel, specialist staff mobility, access to headquarters markets and the ability to scale operations over time are all essential considerations when firms are deciding where to locate or expand investment. Any constraint on Ireland's principal international gateway introduces uncertainty into those decisions.

From our perspective, maintaining the passenger cap presents a number of risks. There is a risk to Ireland's international connectivity. An airport that cannot plan for future demand struggles to sustain existing routes or justify new ones. This is particularly significant for long-haul connectivity, where route viability depends on confidence in sustained capacity. The cap also sends a negative signal internationally. IDA Ireland has consistently highlighted that the existence of an artificial constraint on passenger numbers at the State's main airport creates reputational risk with international airlines and investors. At a time of intense global competition, this is not a helpful signal. Third, there is a broader competitiveness risk. Peer locations with which Ireland competes plan airport capacity based on future growth. Retaining the cap risks Ireland falling behind comparable EU locations in terms of access, frequency and network depth.

Ireland continues to be a premier location for FDI, with a record number of investments secured by IDA Ireland during 2025. We strongly support balanced regional development and continued growth at Cork, Shannon and other regional airports. However, regional development and a fully functioning primary hub are not alternatives; they are complementary. Dublin Airport plays a unique role in Ireland's connectivity that cannot be substituted elsewhere.

For these reasons, IDA Ireland supports the removal of the passenger cap and the expansion of operational capacity at Dublin Airport, so that it can meet future demand in line with Ireland's economic objectives and transport policy priorities.

This is not about unconstrained growth. It is about ensuring that critical national infrastructure does not become a structural bottleneck to investment, employment and economic resilience.

We welcome the committee's engagement on this issue and are happy to assist it further with its deliberations.

I am grateful for the invitation to discuss this important Bill. The Irish Hotels Federation strongly supports the Government’s legislative approach to addressing the Dublin Airport passenger cap and its recognition of the airport as a national strategic asset. The Bill is a vital step in securing the future of Ireland’s tourism industry. With 70% of our tourism economy relying on international visitors, the 32 million passenger cap is a strategic bottleneck. This restriction, which was conceived in 2007 to address local traffic concerns, no longer reflects modern Ireland. The cap threatens Ireland’s national connectivity, growth and economic stability. It is out of step with the Government’s national tourism policy, which targets ambitious increases in overseas tourism into Ireland by 2030. We cannot achieve these growth targets without the ability to increase passenger numbers into Dublin. Furthermore, international tour operators and conference organisers are already planning as far ahead as 2029. Without legislative certainty now, Ireland risks being sidelined in favour of more accessible European destinations.

Without intervention, the cap will continue to damage tourism development. It will restrict market diversification. The new tourism policy plan emphasises growth from diverse markets. However, the cap has already led to a reduction in transatlantic services and hindered potential direct connections to fast-growing emerging destinations. The passenger cap will drive up costs. Artificial scarcity of flight slots leads to higher air fares, undermining Ireland’s competitiveness as a destination for international travellers. It also creates uncertainty for investment. Ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding the cap has discouraged airlines from launching new routes. Conversely, the temporary pause of the cap during the legal review unlocked 12% more seats island-wide for spring 2026. Each day of delay now weakens Ireland's standing, allowing other European destinations to capture growth that Ireland would otherwise have secured. This is not just a Dublin issue. Dublin Airport is a vital hub for regional distribution. When capacity is constrained at the centre, the impact is felt by tourism businesses from Donegal to Kerry.

We therefore welcome the proposed mechanism under consideration, which would empower the Minister for Transport to amend or revoke capacity limits following appropriate assessments. We urge the joint committee to expedite the pre-legislative scrutiny process to ensure the Bill is enacted without undue delay. Failure to act decisively would be an own goal for our tourism industry and the wider Irish economy, leaving our primary gateway constrained while our international competitors continue to grow.

Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. I thank all stakeholders here this evening for their opening statements, which make clear the central importance of Dublin Airport not just as transport infrastructure but also as a key driver of tourism, trade, investment and regional economic activity. For the record, the pre-legislative scrutiny process is about ensuing that any legislative response is balanced and evidence based and takes full account of economic, environmental and regional considerations. Today's contributions are very valuable in informing us of our work.

I will now proceed to members' questions, starting with Deputy Crowe.

I thank our witnesses for their opening statements. I also thank their representative bodies, which are doing a lot of good work for Ireland Inc. and trying to keep our country out there in terms of enticing people in and supporting industry at home and abroad at a time when the global economy is quite choppy.

Ms O'Sullivan from the IDA mentioned reputational risk. I think that at our last meeting perhaps some reputational damage was done to the committee and to Ireland Inc., because we have not breached in any shape or form as a country the open skies agreement. We have not. This is not desirable. This whole cap in Dublin Airport is certainly constraining, as the witnesses have articulated and has we have heard many times over. Indeed, there is a plan evolving to legislate and to correct that. Open skies is an agreement between this and other countries. It is not an airport-to-airport agreement. While there are artificial constraints in Dublin Airport, they do not amount to a breach of an international agreement. Our stakeholders tune in to this committee. There might be 18 or 20 of us in the room but there are stakeholders, including airlines and people who invest a lot of money in Ireland Inc., who depend on our economic stability. They heard messages at our last meeting that were entirely inaccurate. I want to reiterate, as someone who has been part of this committee for many years now, that this country is open to business. We have a lacuna and a thing we need to fix here, but it is progressing and we are here to scrutinise that.

I want to really home in on one aspect I have raised at other meetings. Particularly IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland have an all-Ireland remit and the all-Ireland economy matters to them. One of the omissions I see in this general scheme is that it is very Dublin-focused. It has to be, to a point, because we are trying to fix an issue for Dublin Airport. However, it totally ignores the other regions of Ireland, in my opinion. There is no mention of them. Any time we draft legislation or devise new policies, we have to have cognisance of Project Ireland 2040, the national planning framework and balanced regional development. I do not think anyone living in the real world is suggesting we upend Dublin Airport dominance and start dividing up that 90% dominance out to Knock, Shannon, Cork and other airports. That is not what we are on about, but the policy seems to be totally blind to balanced regional development. As industry chiefs, do the witnesses have a view on that? We have to be cognisant of it in other Government policies but we seem to be blind to it here. Each day, there are 16 direct flights from Dublin to Amsterdam Schiphol and not a single one out to the other regions, and that is a vital European hub. If we are getting beyond 12 or 14 flights a day, it is probably time to look at the other regions, as they have done in the Netherlands.

IDA Ireland has a very strong regional focus and a very strong regional mandate. I mentioned in my opening statement that we are targeting to get 55% of investments into regional locations over the lifetime of this current strategy. That is up from 50% over the last one. We are doing well so far. Last year, 183 investments, or 57% of the total, went into regions. We have worked very hard over many years to get investments into regional locations in Ireland. We know when we look at multinational companies that they do look at big urban centres. We have put a lot of work in with regional stakeholders to make sure every region in Ireland benefits from IDA investment. We are supportive of investments in the regions that improve transport infrastructure around the regions. This is in a lot of different areas and includes investments in things like transport infrastructure, human capital, energy, broadband and all of the other pieces that are needed in regional locations. We are very supportive of that. We do support the development of regional airports but, going back to the point the Deputy made at the start, it is not an either-or here. We need Dublin to be a very strong hub to be able to feed the routes that go to other locations and also to support the regional network.

Similar to our colleagues in IDA Ireland, regional development is at the heart of Enterprise Ireland. Our companies employ over 230,000 people, through both direct employment and a wider indirect contribution, and those people are employed in every county in Ireland and in every village and town across the country. Balanced regional development is central in that regard and something we are very focused on. Last year, 69% of the new jobs that were created were outside Dublin, which emphasises that point. Likewise, I would not see it as an either-or. It is about ensuring that all of our companies can achieve that connectivity we talked about, whether it is around the business they need to do, the supply chains they need to secure or the contacts they need to maintain. It is about making that as accessible as possible on the whole island for our clients, which points to the importance of balanced regional development, as the Deputy's question suggested.

I thank the witnesses for their evidence and for coming here today. I want to focus on the role of Dublin Airport as a strategic hub. I will speak to the IDA and Enterprise Ireland first. A large part of the role both organisations are performing as State agencies is in gathering market intelligence on where we see growth in the future, where we see FDI coming into the country and where we see our export markets. What is that engagement telling them about what diversification of routes is necessary from Ireland, specifically from Dublin Airport?

Our overall approach to diversification is that while the North American market is still very important to the IDA, is still something like 60% of our business and will remain so, and having those connections into North America is very important, we are also seeing continued growth in European markets and the wider Asian markets.

Regarding route development, FDI alone will never do the development for you. It is the interaction between the investment demand, the cargo demand that goes with exports, but also the tourism demand that makes airline routes-----

I will be more specific. Obviously, when you are selling Ireland as a location for FDI, one of the things you point to is that we have a strategic hub in Dublin Airport. As part of that data-gathering exercise, have gaps become apparent to the IDA in terms of new routes or routes that are not available from Dublin at the moment and where it thinks that sort of growth should happen?

I do not have that information with me. There are certain areas that we looked at in the past, such as getting connectivity to places like the west coast of the US and so on. A Chinese route opened recently, but I am not aware of other specific routes.

From an Enterprise Ireland point of view, what is the position on export growth?

I will give a sense of it. As I mentioned, our ambition is to achieve €50 billion in exports by 2029. If we look at the key markets from which that will be driven, Europe remains a key market at €19.5 billion. The UK remains a very important market for a lot of our clients, which are small businesses, and the first step off the domestic market can be to the UK, and that is at €14.5 billion. In the US, we are targeting €8.5 billion. We have companies selling in Asia-Pacific, South America and all parts of the globe, including Africa. We work very closely with those companies to enable that connectivity, supported by the international office network that we have. They are the main markets that will drive our growth.

Africa and Asia-Pacific are the two major growth areas.

We will see growth there. I would focus on those key markets of the UK, the US and Europe, but we expect to see growth in all markets, including those, but starting from a smaller base.

My other question for the tourism sector concerns those markets where the witnesses think there is scope to attract tourism to Ireland. Where are the target areas for that or where is the gap in the routes available from Dublin Airport for those markets?

Irish tourism is interesting at the moment. We are heavily dependent on North America. The Americans are great tourists to Ireland. They spend a lot of money, tour the regions and so on. However, like any sector, there is a vulnerability in having all your eggs in one basket to a certain extent. There is a market diversification approach for Irish tourism, both to deepen and defend what we have in the United States but also to look at new markets. The two big obvious gaps are South America - Brazil in particular - and India. We have no direct services from those countries. There have been tentative inquiries but the doubt over the Dublin Airport cap has an effect.

If an airline is to commit aircraft to a destination, it is a big play and there is a lot of investment. They want certainty; if not certainty about trading conditions, because who knows what is going to happen with economic conditions, then certainty in terms of capacities, slots and that sort of thing. We have not been able to penetrate those markets directly because of the Dublin Airport passenger cap.

If flexibility were given on that, would Mr. O’Mara Walsh feel confident that, if we were to penetrate those markets, we would see relatively fast growth?

It is not turning on a tap or flicking a switch. It takes time. However, the Government has included tourism within its market diversification strategy, which is very positive. There are new Tourism Ireland offices and footprints happening in those key markets. Air connectivity is what drives tourism, so we struggle to secure those particular long-haul markets that are developing in emerging countries at the moment, primarily because of the lack of connectivity.

The other thing worth noting is that we have communities of Indian and South American origin in the country who require that connectivity.

I will turn to the business representative organisations regarding the growth piece. If the cap were removed and if we were to apply a modest growth in passenger numbers at Dublin Airport in line with population growth, what sort of economic knock-on effect would we see from that?

It is a great opportunity. We have to look at it in light of the risks to our current markets as well as the opportunity for the future. As we look at trade, there are several opportunities out there. First, there is the opportunity to do more with the Single Market, which is the whole of Europe. Deputy Crowe mentioned Amsterdam, where there seems to be a surfeit of flights. There are many other parts of the European Union that are still quite difficult to get to, so we would like to see greater opportunities developed there. There is the Mercosur trade agreement, which we are disappointed does not seem to have more support in the House. We would like to see Ireland really get behind that. There is not just the opportunity for tourism with Brazil but the opportunity for trade with Brazil and the other three, becoming four, countries as well. There is a market of 300 million people, which is another huge opportunity. India is another opportunity if there is a trade agreement, given the 1.3 billion people there. There are huge opportunities, particularly for us to diversify. We were also disappointed to see that the Taoiseach had to postpone his trip to Canada, where the CETA agreement, even though it is only provisionally applied, is already generating significant benefits to both agriculture and industry more widely.

I will add to that point. I have worked on building up the business case for routes to San Francisco and Hong Kong, and I have looked at China and Japan. The way it works is that an airline says that it has spent €100 million on the aeroplane, and another €5 million or €10 million to kit it out for a 737 MAX. It is €400 million or €450 million for long-haul. They ask how they will make a return, and they look at two or three slots a week in Dublin Airport. What they tend to do when they come to us - we have hospitality members such as hotels and restaurants as well - is to look at the front seats first. They ask how many businesses we know that will use routes frequently and have people who need to be in San Francisco to meet with key officials or members of a US company that they might be dealing with, or it might be their parent company. We fill it from the front. Tourism is also an important component, but they want to know about the front seats first.

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. I will start with a specific question and then broaden it out. One of the issues I am most concerned about with this Bill is head 12, which excludes the application of the provisions of the climate action Act to any decision taken or function under this legislation. I have been trying to ascertain why that was inserted. I have asked the officials involved and asked the various groups that came to earlier hearings, and no one has ever really been able to say what difference it is going to make in this situation. In any of the engagement the organisations have had with the Minister or the Department on the issue of the cap, and I am sure all of them have been engaged, have they ever referenced the issue of head 12? Have they ever specifically asked for issues concerning the climate action Act being excluded from any decision related to the airport cap? Do any of the groups have an issue with, or have any of them taken a position specifically on, head 12? Do any of the groups feel that head 12 is very important in terms of what they want to see achieved by that legislation? I know this is very specific, but I am trying to figure out why that provision is in the Bill. The witnesses are here, so I would be interested to hear their views.

The answer is “No”. The Deputy knows that we share the concerns about the sustainable development goals, for example, but on this, we have been very focused on the arbitrary cap from almost 20 years ago, and that has been our primary focus. We have not sought to influence anything else in this space.

We are obviously extremely keen to keep making progress on infrastructure, as is the Deputy. I specifically mentioned MetroLink in my presentation. Some 20 years later we are still trying to get that started, as I hope we now will. These things are important. I will also refer to the opportunities for wind power, which would help solve our emissions crisis in different ways. There are choices and compromises to be made here. However, as to the Deputy's specific question, we have not focused on that at all.

Do any of the groups have a view on the matter?

I am not aware of any engagement on that specific article.

I might move to a slightly broader question. As Mr. Talbot has said, we are talking about a cap that is linked to quite an old planning condition from nearly 20 years ago. It was not imposed as an environmental or climate measure. As I have said throughout this process, if I was looking to design some sort of climate restriction or limitation on Dublin Airport, this is not the way I would go about it. However, the cap is the only limit that is there at the moment and we have to talk about this as a binary decision between leaving it in place or getting rid of it.

In these sessions, I have been trying to get a sense, initially from officials, as to whether there is any upper limit to the permissible growth of Dublin Airport. We are being asked to remove this cap and the witnesses have all made the case for doing so. When I asked officials whether the Department has a policy with regard to any upper size limit for Dublin Airport, I was told it did not. The IAA does not have a policy on it either. It seems the growth of Dublin Airport is primarily driven by the number of aircraft the airlines can bring through the airport. Is that the best way? Dublin Airport is our biggest airport and has a huge economic impact on the country. However, it also has other impacts on the country, as we all acknowledge. Should this be driven entirely by the views of one sector or should the State say that, while this is key infrastructure, it also has an impact on those in its immediate proximity and on the climate and that we should at least state where we believe it should be by 2025 and by 2040 and that we see it going any more quickly than that as not being optimal? I would love to get the views of the organisations as to whether there should be any limit at all on the growth of Dublin Airport.

Any limit would have a restrictive effect. The speed at which we might reach an upper limit might present another problem. We would all be back around the table saying 40 million was not enough. Dublin Airport is growing at exactly the same rate as other European airports. It is not unbalanced for a major capital city to have a growing airport. The question in the future might be whether Dublin needs a second airport. That might present an opportunity to shift growth to a second airport in Dublin. However, at the moment, the industry is certainly not looking to put an upper limit on the capacity of Dublin Airport, just as we do not like this low limit.

Needing more flights is a nice problem to have. From our perspective, the goal is not to have more flights for the sake of having more flights but for flights to generate employment and investment. You change demand. The employment numbers have gone from 1 million to 2.8 million in the last 30 years. You get a growth figure anyway. I am not sure whether the Deputy is talking about an absolute limit on the number of flights into the country or just on those into Dublin Airport.

Could I-----

I am sorry to have interrupted the Deputy. I did not mean to do that. Just to clarify, the goal is to raise living standards and to create employment opportunities. From a business lobby point of view, the goal is to create opportunities for investment and trade. Employment is a consequence of that.

I only have 30 seconds so I might just jump on Mr. McGibney's statement that the goal is not to have flights for flights' sake but for those flights to create economic growth. With regard to the type of flights, some of the flights are tourism flights while some have a greater business impact. I am probably ultimately asking about types of passengers. Are there types of passengers that the groups would have a preference for with regard to the growth we are going to see over the next number of years?

The phrase I am familiar with is that you fill the plane from the front up. I probably did not explain it correctly. Once you know there are going to be 20 people travelling to San Francisco on a regular basis to meet a board or whatever, that is a number you can bank on. The rest will depend on the Irish season. Obviously, there are shoulders to the Irish season, so there are different demands. Mr. O'Mara Walsh or one of the other witnesses could probably address that point. You do not break down a plane and say it is a chartered flight or a tourists-only flight. We generally work with airlines to build up a business case to enter a new market. It is about filling up those first 20 or 30 seats, the first-class and business-class seats. Once the airlines know the plane will be half full, they can fill the rest.

I thank the witnesses very much for coming in. I am sorry that I missed some of their opening addresses. I live in the west of Ireland, in Sligo. I obviously want to see more investment into Knock airport. I am very concerned at the suggestion that a second airport might be sought for Dublin. We have a tiny country. I would love to see better connectivity between the airports. The witnesses have outlined that, if people are coming into Dublin Airport, the cap will ensure connectivity to the other airports. My worry is that, while the cap has been in place, we have not seen the level of investment we would like to see in the regional airports, particularly those at Shannon and Knock. I will give an example of my own. We often go to Dublin to fly out to our own holiday destinations but we have to get a bus and are very reliant on things being on time. My concern about the cap being lifted is that we have not seen the investments in the regional airports that we should have seen and we have not seen the connectivity between airports that we would like to see. It was said that 55% of Enterprise Ireland investment was in rural areas. Will that change? That is the worry. If the cap is lifted, will that have an impact on balanced regional development?

I would say that it absolutely will not. Lifting the cap actually helps regional development because when we bring prospective new investors into Ireland to show them different locations around the country, they will generally come into Dublin Airport first because the level of connectivity it has right across the world is very good for us. Those investors are then taken to different locations around the country. Dublin Airport is almost like the front door. It can be difficult for the necessary level of flights from a really specific place in North America or Europe into one specific region of Ireland to be commercially feasible. However, if you have flights coming into Dublin, you can take people around the country and show them the different locations. Getting them here in the first place is very important.

I understand that but the infrastructure to keep people might not be there. I include the roads in that. My concern is that any commitment to ensuring proper infrastructure in the west of Ireland will be impeded by a lifting of the cap. We could make ground in saying that regional areas will benefit not just from FDI but through growth in SMEs and the tourism sector. There is a big opportunity to develop the tourist sector in the west of Ireland. Perhaps Mr. O'Mara Walsh would respond to that point.

I thank the Senator for the question. Tourism's superhero status comes from its impact on regional Ireland but we have to be careful with this debate because none of us can direct or divert airlines to specific airports. That day is well gone. Nobody is ever going back there and nobody is suggesting we should. The good news is that, for the first time, 1 million passengers went through Knock airport last year. Cork and Shannon both had double-digit growth last year. It is not mutually exclusive. To go back to what a few other commenters said earlier, this is not a binary choice. The Government could be more generous with capital expenditure supports for some of the regional airports while still staying within EU state aid rules. The Government could certainly do things to support Knock, Shannon and Cork.

It could also act to support the infrastructure around those airports.

Yes, it could certainly do that. That would allow the airports to incentivise airlines to come in directly. However, I do not think a cap on Dublin Airport would result in gains for Knock, Shannon or Cork. Instead, Manchester or some other location in Great Britain or the EU would gain and Ireland, as a whole, would lose out. We have to be careful with that debate.

As an elected representative in Sligo, this has been brought up with me a few times.

There were flights. I am glad Mr. Talbot clarified that. There were even flights to the UK. People who might be working in the UK fly there and back. Now the flights have been stopped and they have to go to Dublin in order to be in time. My concern is that it will affect it.

We are big supporters of balanced regional development as well. We look at things like the big infrastructure Bill, the national development plan and getting Sligo's population up, meriting improvement in the road and rail networks and everything else. That is the sort of thing that will help Knock Airport to grow and be of more interest, rather than just getting airlines that want to go there and the volume of people wanting to come in or leave for trade reasons or whatever else as well. Building the population numbers as part of the national development plan is a key part of this as well.

We must get things out of Dublin and get people moving out.

Yes, which is back to the power of the national development plan and growing the population in other places as well. I agree with the point about the diversion. What we are talking about is the fear that the business goes to Glasgow, Manchester, Amsterdam or somewhere else.

We have heard from many different groups. Even tomorrow we will hear from some groups, in particular local groups that are living around there. Have the witnesses spoken to different interest groups or residents' associations that are concerned? We must also bear in mind medical and health and welfare groups such as representative organisations. Have they engaged with the witnesses on the impact of lifting the cap on sleep patterns? I refer to all the concerns they have such as pollution and noise pollution. Have the witnesses had an opportunity to engage with them?

We have a chamber in Fingal. They are not with us today but they are very close to the issues. Both the CEO of the Fingal chamber and I live in Malahide, for example, so we are aware of the aspect of the new runway. It is an issue of concern. We understand why people are worried about it.

Has there been any discussion about having time restrictions on night flights?

No, we have not looked at the exact number of aeroplanes coming in. There is a lot of freight. Freight is important to us as well as the passenger cap in terms of what the airport does. A lot of the freight comes in at night. The issues need to be dealt with. Our understanding is that there are planning applications. Fingal County Council is responsible for noise. It is to be hoped future technology will improve some of the noise factors. We have the opportunity to soundproof the right houses in the area. There are so many things that can be done as well that are separate from the cap that will potentially constrain-----

I agree there are a lot more things that we could do. I thank Mr. Talbot.

There is total consensus that the passenger cap is restrictive and outdated. There is a link in terms of competitiveness and connectivity. The witnesses all made a strong economic argument in their opening statements in terms of FDI, export, tourism and jobs, and indeed the urgency in the context of planning for 2027. The IAA made key decisions in October in terms of the declaration for summer 2027.

We had the communities living within the vicinity of Dublin Airport before us a number of weeks ago. They expressed a lot of emotion and concern about compliance with other planning conditions and environmental standards. What would each of the witnesses in turn say to the residents living in the vicinity of Dublin Airport? Is it to lift the cap at any cost? Do they think there should be certain conditions imposed by the State on the lifting of the cap, relating to infrastructural deficits that exist at Dublin Airport? First, I will ask the ITIC to respond and then we will finish with IDA Ireland.

The Dublin Airport Authority is a member of ITIC, so we work quite closely with it. It has quite a constructive relationship with local communities, and it is in touch with them quite a lot.

For fear that it is watching, that was not the evidence it gave to the committee.

A lot of the surveys it did show that. I am sure it is up on the DAA website that local communities are quite supportive of Dublin Airport because of the economic value, the jobs and so on. There is a multimillion euro package that Dublin Airport provides to help purchase homes that are directly impacted or, as one of my colleagues said, it retrofits homes. It is certainly an issue and it needs to be taken in the round. We just have to be very careful again that a key piece of strategic national infrastructure such as Dublin Airport is not handicapped by a relatively small number of impacted parties. Everything should and must be done to help those impacted parties in terms of either mitigating the impact or giving them some sort of economic support. That is my central point.

We are not immune to the plight of people who live very close to the airport. They articulate very well the difficulties they experience day in, day out. I believe that a huge consideration is more new generation aircraft, new fuels that are more efficient and less polluting, quieter engines, better technology for insulating homes and other methods that might help dampen and prevent a lot of noise pollution and sound pollution and the quality of air. We need to work harder as a society, and certainly Dublin Airport and the Department of the environment, to ensure that people who live close to the airport are not impacted more than they should be by the development of future growth at Dublin Airport. It is not one over the other. Both need to be done.

To be fair, I do not think I could really comment on the residents. I would not see it as the role of Enterprise Ireland and I would not feel qualified to comment on it. The point that is being made to the committee today is the importance of connectivity for Irish enterprise. That is the point we are trying to make.

I am not sure if people come to us expecting us to be sympathetic towards residents, but we do appreciate their concerns. There are solutions available to help people in particular circumstances. There is an issue with every piece of infrastructure that we try to build. If it is a wind farm, people are concerned about shadow flicker. If it is the extension of railway lines and busier railways, we are going to affect people who live beside railway lines. Unfortunately, infrastructure comes with environmental concerns that need to be addressed. If local residents have concerns, it is important that they have an opportunity to air them. I am delighted to hear that the committee has given them such an opportunity. People must be reasonable about how those concerns are addressed and dealt with.

We have sympathy for people who are dealing with these kinds of situations. Like everybody else has said, there are different technological solutions. These concerns are also addressed through the normal standard planning rules. If the cap is removed, the normal amelioration that needs to happen will come into play.

My final question is something that concerns me. I do not know if it is something that is a concern to any of the witnesses. I refer to the extent to which 85% of all airline traffic goes through Dublin Airport. Is that a good thing for the country? I am concerned about the possibility of a critical incident at Dublin Airport. Some of the witnesses have addressed it already in their opening statements. Should we be doing more to spread it a little bit more across our regional airports?

I will repeat the point that aviation is demand led, so none of us can direct an airline to fly to a particular airport or region. In an ideal world we probably would have more balance. The Government could do more to support the regional airports, for example, by giving them CAPEX support, which would not breach EU state aid rules. That would allow the regional airports in turn to incentivise airlines to come in, but ultimately aviation is demand led. Wherever the business wants to fly to, that is where the airline is pointed. That is a reality that we all have to accept. The good thing is that if there is a critical incident, we do have Shannon, Cork and Knock to provide a little bit of balance straight away in terms of relief. Ultimately the central point is that aviation is demand led.

I will make one other point. The rail network has hugely improved inter-airport connectivity in Ireland. The motorway network is to the European standard. The Government has two public service obligations for Donegal and Kerry. It is entirely up to the Government whether it wants to introduce new contracts to connect regional airports with Dublin as the capital airport.

Mr. O'Mara Walsh is quite right in that airlines will not be forced to go somewhere we might like them to go. That is just the nature of it. We lose them altogether rather than try to put them somewhere else.

We would not necessarily be experts in terms of airport size. However, the discussion could be harnessed a bit more in terms of regional development around things that are happening on the ground. There is a huge amount of activity on the ground between regional enterprise plans. There is a review of the regional economic spatial strategies. There is much focus on Government policy around regions that have smart specialisation and areas they are particularly good at. Certainly, from our perspective where we feed into that is where the future focus of opportunities might be. The conversation around infrastructure, including airports, can be harnessed in that context.

I have a question for the two gentlemen from Chambers Ireland. I believe American Chamber, Amcham, is a separate entity which does not come under their umbrella. They would still have a fairly good pulse of the different chambers around the country, including Shannon Chamber in my own constituency where 40% of the industry there is American headquartered. What is Chambers Ireland hearing from members and American affiliates around the country about their concerns? Does it ring true with what we were hearing a couple of weeks ago in this Chamber from the airline industry that there is huge worry from American industry and possibly the threat of reciprocation or retaliation? I would argue we are not doing it in the first place, but threats certainly were issued. Chambers Ireland probably cannot comment on that. That is probably for the political officeholders in the United States. However, Chambers Ireland might encapsulate what its affiliate members are saying around the country.

That is a very good question. I spent the best part of 18 years working for American companies, so I know what it is like on the inside. American companies here are constantly competing every year for investment budgets to retain and grow their existing business. They are competing with that same company's operation in the Philippines, Singapore, Hong Kong or Bournemouth in the UK for financial services and all that. If the circumstances are not right at the headquarters in New York, Seattle or Washington, wherever it is, that investment will go to somewhere else that is more open. Once there is any mood music about a problem and it being difficult to get things done, the investment decision where there is a limited pool of money available and several countries effectively bidding is that that money will be going to other countries. That is a real problem and they are very concerned about that. From American companies' perspective, and we talk to them a lot, they just want to get on and do business. We know there are issues at the moment. They just want to get on with it and do business. They want to give their Irish company the best possible investment opportunity as well. They are concerned when they hear this rhetoric, and knowing that the uncertain world we now live in, it could actually be, although we might think it unfair, that retaliation could come in first. Get your retaliation in first, as the old expression goes.

I thank Mr. Talbot for his response. For any of the industries I have met over the years, this is an enticing country to do business in, in regard to the regulatory position, the tax regime and the talented workforce. However, we are an island nation and when they do come here, one of things they value more than anything is being able to be plugged into the mothership of the company, wherever it is headquartered. That involves having the top executives being able to fly in and out but also their staff. There is huge mobility in this workforce, as we often see at the departure gates. If you get chatting with some of these people, they are flying in and out of Boston and they will be in Galway and back in the office the following afternoon. It is essential to have that business connectivity.

At an individual level, family decisions can actually matter as well. If an executive is looking to move their husband and family or wife and family but they do not feel they will be able to get back to Boston or wherever, that has an impact.

To pick up on what Deputy Crowe said, I worked in an American company for almost ten years as well. I agree wholeheartedly with his point, and it is something I want to raise with the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. In terms of that seniority piece and the ease of movement, and it is what I was trying to get at that earlier with the market diversification piece, if we want to headquarter non-Irish firms in this country, we have to make it easy not only for their executives but also the homegrown executives who will work for those to be, as Deputy Crowe said, plugged into the mothership there. Similarly, from Enterprise Ireland's point of view, if we are to grow Irish companies to go abroad, we need to provide that for the homegrown executives in those countries to be mobile here as well. That is why I am getting at this idea of the diversification piece. That is key to understanding where are we missing a trick.

I have one question that I did not ask earlier, which is around peer airports that we mentioned. Schiphol is obviously one. To get a sense from the witnesses about what are the peer airports that Dublin is being compared with, not from our point of view but from the boardrooms that Enterprise Ireland is going into, from the export customers it meets, from the tourism fairs it attends, and from the expansion opportunities for its members, what airports is Dublin being held up against and is it being said, "You guys are missing a trick because these three other airports here offer this"? Perhaps a representative of each of the group might give me a sense of that.

Dublin Airport's big advantage, and Shannon Airport has this too, is the customs pre-clearance. That is gold dust and we should guard that carefully. There might be one other European city that has it. That is the big advantage we have. The competitors to Dublin in the tourism world tend to be the likes of Amsterdam, Lisbon, Edinburgh and Berlin, those sort of cities both from the tourism offering that those cities offer and access and the airports. The pre-clearance is so important. That is the one we really need to guard carefully for both Dublin and Shannon.

It depends on the sector. For pharma it is one particular rival and for financial services it is another in terms of the rival airport. The airport and the access piece are not the only thing. If there is a flight tomorrow to a destination, it does not make the decision for you. It depends on the sector. When we try to benchmark Dublin against rival cities, in fact the Dublin economic monitor that the four local authorities produce is really good, we must drill down and find out for which sector. The answer is different, depending on the sector. There is no one answer.

It is about connectivity. I do not think our clients compare airports. It is very much about our clients who are scattered all around every part of Ireland being able to connect with their international partners. That is the key.

Similarly, it is about connectivity and whether you can get in and out in a reasonable amount of time to wherever it is you are going in Ireland. That is the key.

There is nothing left for me to do but to bring the meeting to a conclusion. I thank our witnesses. As I said, there is broad consensus, unlike other meetings I attended earlier today. It is good to finish with a meeting that has broad consensus. I apologise for the delay; the witnesses were held up for an hour. It was outside our control; it was one of those days in Leinster House. The witnesses' appearance here today is much appreciated, as are their statements and their evidence before the committee. We are due to meet again tomorrow, and thereafter we will be looking at a draft report and a lot of engagement with the members with a view to producing that final report. I thank the members, particularly the Vice Chairman because it has been a busy day for us and it has been hard to get members. We do not normally sit on a Tuesday night. I understand the urgency of the pre-legislative scrutiny. The meeting now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, 15 April at 9.30 a.m., when we will meet again in public session.