Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 38.
“They are being inserted alongside more of the approach that has been tried time and again, namely to give developers anything they can dream of. That approach has failed to deliver. For years, we had special measures such as capital gains tax waivers and strategic housing developments. It was always about how to fast-track and how to tie the hands of the public and concerned citizens further behind their backs so that they could not challenge decisions and so bringing judicial reviews would become impossible for them, though not for developers, who, by the way, take 40% of judicial reviews. There is a little reveal in the new legislation because it mentions the significant number of apartments that have received planning permission but have not been commenced.”
“Not only is the Government failing to address the increases in homelessness, the cost of rental accommodation and the cost of houses and apartments, it is also putting these acute rises into legislation as matters to which regard must be had as if they were permanent facts like the weather, mountains or rivers. What an admission of failure it is to insert this. When can we anticipate a planning and development Act that removes the statements of the assumed facts that there are a shortage of residential accommodation and a rise in homelessness? Does the Minister of State believe these assumed facts can be removed in planning legislation in 2027, 2028 and 2029? It is so extraordinary that these statements have been included.”
“As well as this rushed process being bad for democracy and bad for scrutiny, it leads to endless mistakes, amendments, adjustments, backtracking, fixes and attempted fixes, rolling around and moves, because the measures do not work, often do not add up and do not deliver what they promise. An example is the fact that in this legislation, and indeed in a previous Bill, it is stated that one of the proposed new sections, which is undermining apartment standards yet again, has regard to the acute shortage of residential accommodation in the State, the rise in homelessness in the State and the rise in the cost of residential rental accommodation and house and apartment purchase prices in the State. Let us think about that. This is our national planning and development legislation. It is meant to provide for planning and development.”
“I should also note that there have been more planning and development Bills passed by Fine Gael-led Governments since 2011 than in the previous 50 years, and the entire situation has just been getting worse. If there were an epitome of failing to plan and planning to fail, it would be this. Either the Government intentionally plans every single year not to allow enough time to scrutinise planning and development legislation properly, so that it has to be rushed through, or it is failing to plan and inadvertently ending up in the same situation every year. It is literally a case of planning to fail or failing to plan.”
“We can know it is July and nearly the end of term because we are seeing a planning and development Bill rushed through. It happens every single year. Others have spoken about how this is a bad way to produce legislation and how proper scrutiny is needed. Every time, we hear it is time-sensitive and urgent. It is not, because this happens every single year. It is because I had the feeling that I have been here every July looking at a massive planning Bill being pushed through that I went back and checked. Over the past ten years, of 11 planning and development Bills, ten haven been rushed through at the end of July or the end of December. Only one Bill was not pushed through in December or in the final week of July.”
“It would be much easier to take action now when a unanimous vote is required for this to pass. That is particularly the case when we consider the situation in which we find ourselves whereby we need a unanimous vote to get out of the agreement we have with Israel. Let us get it right before we get into it. This is the point of leverage right now.”
“Ireland should be demanding human rights reviews and should be leading on this. I want to hear what Ireland is going to do.”
“As the Minister of State mentioned, the Council will be deciding on this during Ireland's Presidency. It is crucial that there is a focus on this. Those mechanisms are not mechanisms that work for persons who are repressed. We do not hear about West Papua, and there is a reason for that. I have given the Minister of State details of the very few UN reports available. The UN has been trying to get access to West Papua. There is a report from 2021. During the nine years of negotiation, we have UN reports about extrajudicial killings. With respect, saying that we have a mechanism is not the same as saying that we are taking action. That is why if Ireland has a values-led Presidency of the European Union, it needs to do more than point arrows to different mechanisms. Ireland should be demanding proper action in respect of these issues.”
“What is missing from the Minister of State's response, with respect, is any reference to West Papua. There was reference to NGOs. I have described the fact that this is a place where there is no journalism and where anybody who takes any political activism is killed or disappeared. They are not coming to meetings in Jakarta on human rights ideals or issues in Indonesia because Indonesia is occupying and repressing them. It is like putting it on Gazan NGOs. The obligation is not on civil societies to put in complaints. The obligation is on due diligence for those who are setting out to make the agreement. It is almost the same flip that they have tried to do on corporate sustainability, to make it the job of NGOs to do due diligence around corporate sustainability. There is a job of due diligence.”
“We need to get ahead of these human rights issues and make sure that they are centrally audited and accounted for prior to tying ourselves into yet further complicity with human rights abuses.”
“We know, sadly, that it is not delivering on that language in terms of Israel and Gaza, as we have seen. As a minimum, it should be learning that when it is bringing in new agreements, it should be a little more robust regarding how the human rights component will be addressed. I would ask that before this new agreement comes to be enacted, which is due to happen during Ireland's EU Presidency, for which we have claimed values will be a central pillar, for a comprehensive human rights review and audit into the situation in West Papua ahead of the scheduled ratification of this EU-Indonesia agreement in early 2027, when our Presidency comes to a close.”
“The report in question estimates that the overall number of displaced individuals could range from 60,000 to 100,000 people. There is a very clear disconnect between what has been agreed by diplomats in the European Union and on the Indonesian side and what is actually taking place on the ground. As of June 2026, more than 125,000 people remain internally displaced in West Papua due to armed conflict and military operations. There are consistent reports. I get weekly updates on extrajudicial killings and the Indonesian security forces' active displacement of entire villages and populations in an effort to intimidate and silence any dissent, or even any reporting of what is happening in this territory. The European Union is claiming that human rights are part of what it does. It is putting this language into its agreements.”
“Within the text of the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, there is language that reaffirms that the signatories of the agreement are obliged to be committed to human rights and have regard for the principles articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, the agreement does not set out any actionable or enforceable conditions tied to market access to make sure that human rights abuses are not happening. Those abuses continue. In 2022, a UN report indicated that between April and November 2021, allegations of several instances of extrajudicial killings, including of young children, enforced disappearance, torture and inhumane treatment and forced displacement of at least 5,000 indigenous Papuans by the security forces were received.”
“The legitimacy of its rule is claimed by Indonesia through a widely condemned sham referendum, known as the Act of Free Choice, in 1969, where Indonesia itself selected over 1,000 voters and decided they would vote on the future of the entire territory, with the threat of force hanging over it. Since that sham referendum, human rights abuses in West Papua have been rampant, with the killing and torture of the civilian population, a crackdown on freedom of speech and expression, a complete lockdown on international journalists entering the territory, which is one of the reasons it gets so little attention, and the taking of political prisoners among those who show support for the West Papuan cause. The Indonesian army continues to act with impunity, denying civil liberties and respect for the indigenous peoples of West Papua.”
“In September 2025, the European Union signed the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with Indonesia. It is an agreement with an estimated value of €27 billion in trade between the European Union and Indonesia. I want to raise with the Minister of State a concern regarding the issue of West Papua. West Papua comprises the western half of the island of New Guinea, and it borders Papua New Guinea to the east. It has been governed by Indonesia since it was invaded in the 1960s, with over 500,000 people killed since then in military operations. Since Indonesian control was established, there has been consistent and fierce resistance by the native population.”
“It is not a justification now, and it is not one that will wash with the public. We will have an opportunity to improve it. I have a final question. If the Government's dual-pronged approach does not deliver a ban on services from Europe during the six months of the Presidency, will it come back and bring it through the Legislature? If Gaza and Lebanon become the subject of settlement, will it also bring them in? Those are the questions that I will be asking and looking for hard answers on at Committee Stage.”
“It can be done. Spain is doing it, and it is recognised as a measure having equivalent effect. The principle is there and it can be done. That leaves us with Ireland's wider economic and employment interests. Is this to do with money? Are we going to say that economic interests trump the dead children that everybody talks about how they care about them? Does it trump the stolen land and robbed ground? That is not acceptable to the Irish public, and it does not give the public what it deserves. Colonialism is never acceptable and that is why our original Bill also referred to every occupied territory, including Western Sahara and Western Papua, because the fact that money can be made out of it is never a justification for the trashing of human rights and the making of pieces.”
“If we get a ruling from the European Court of Justice, which the committee believed and all of the experts who went on the record believed, it will oblige EU action. We would not just have to try to persuade it and bring it slowly, it would oblige it. There was also concern expressed at the committee about the danger of bad precedent. Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh spoke about the significance of the good precedent of Ireland passing legislation that is squarely in compliance with its obligations and about the flip side if Ireland passed selective or restrictive legislation that did not fully comply with its obligations. She said it could have a negative impact and could be used by other states to say "this much, but no more". The legally defensible piece is clear. The practically enforceable piece is something that we are doing already on Russia.”
“If the Government is doing something and it says that this is what is required to comply and if the Attorney General says it in front of the International Court of Justice but then it goes ahead to only partially comply, there is a problem there. I am going to come back to the two-pronged approach in a second but I want to briefly point to the reasons that are given here, which include being legally defensible, practically enforceable and mindful of Ireland's wider economic interests. On the issue of legal defensibility, because we were so confident with the crystal-clear legal advice that we got, the committee saw a legal challenge as an opportunity to set a precedent at the EU level and force the European Union to act, because it is not just about persuasion.”
“When the opinion came out, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, clearly stated that the only interpretation of it is that it relates to all trade and we have a Bill that the Government claims that it wants it to provide for compliance with the international obligations that were already there but that were made explicit in that opinion. We have seen, however, a dilution where we have gone from a Bill to provide for compliance to something that might contribute positively to Ireland's efforts to comply. The Minister acknowledged on Committee Stage in the Dáil that this is something that would only achieve partial compliance. There is a constitutional question here.”
“When we - Senator Black, I and others - first brought this Bill, we were clear on international law then. It is has not changed. What changed was the Attorney General's opinion and it moved into alignment with ours. The Attorney General stated: In Ireland’s view, these obligations require all states ... to review their trading relationships ... and to take steps to prevent trade that assists in the maintenance of the situation created by the settlement activity ... That is what the Attorney General said and that was just on trade.”
“I must disagree with one of my colleagues from the foreign affairs committee, who I acknowledge backed the unanimous report that we put forward, in respect of the suggestion that the Attorney General's advice trumps any other legal opinion, because it does not. The Attorney General's advice does not trump an opinion of the International Court of Justice, and even Trump does not trump an International Court of Justice opinion. The International Court of Justice is clear on this and by the way, while we do not know what advice the Attorney General has given the Government, we know what the Attorney General said in public previously. The Attorney General was pretty clear on Ireland's view of the obligations and I note these were the obligations that existed prior to the International Court of Justice's opinion.”
“Where significant adverse impacts are identified, the Minister would publish proposals as to what he is going to do. That is actually what the amendment stated. You would not have thought it from the Minister's response, but that is what the actual amendment looked for. I think it was pretty reasonable, and I am pressing it.”
“-----the impact on biodiversity and congestion on public health. Then that would be information which the Minister has. Then the Minister could then respond to it. It is not a new planning process. It is simply saying in regard to that discretionary power the Minister is granting himself under this legislation that, as well as thinking about an environmental impact assessment before the Minister makes the order, they might look at it after the fact. Honestly, those are things they should be monitoring all the time. It is disingenuous to suggest that this is a separate planning process, which would be on an ongoing basis. It is simply a monitoring process, and the Minister should be monitoring the noise, the air quality and the greenhouse gas emissions on an ongoing basis in the national airport. That is a fairly reasonable thing.”
“It is a useful idea not just to have an environmental impact assessment of whatever quality may be there at the original time of the order, but that there would be ongoing environmental impact assessments. This would allow us to see the impact of the new order and the new rule, and this would be monitored every two years. It would also cover some of the issues in relation to air quality and noise impact which are of significant importance to the communities directly under the flight paths or in the adjacent areas.”
“(3) The assessment shall be published and laid before each House of the Oireachtas. (4) Where an assessment carried out under this section identifies significant adverse environmental effects, the Minister shall, within 6 months, publish proposals to mitigate or address those effects.”. I will be very brief because I am conscious others want to have the chance to vote on their amendments. This amendment is seeking to ensure that there would be ongoing periodic environmental assessments, and that these would look at issues in respect of greenhouse gas, air quality, noise impacts, impacts on biodiversity and protected sites, impacts on the surface transport networks and congestion, impacts on public health, and other such environmental effects as the Minister may consider appropriate.”
“I move amendment No. 18: In page 28, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “Periodic environmental impact assessments 27. (1) Where an order has been made under section 25 , the Minister shall, not later than 2 years after the coming into operation of that order and every 2 years thereafter, ensure that an environmental impact assessment of the operation of Dublin Airport is carried out. (2) An environmental impact assessment under this section shall assess— (a) greenhouse gas emissions associated with passenger activity at Dublin Airport, (b) air quality impacts, (c) noise impacts, (d) impacts on biodiversity and protected sites, (e) impacts on surface transport networks and congestion, (f) impacts on public health, and (g) such other environmental effects as the Minister considers appropriate.”
“I move amendment No. 12: In page 24, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “(3) The Climate Change Advisory Council shall issue a recommendation to the Minister to amend a passenger capacity condition where it is of the opinion that such a condition is causing or would be likely to cause serious harm to the State’s ability to meet the National Climate Objective.”.”
“In that regard, I am going to proceed with pressing my amendments. I am not satisfied that the measures are otherwise addressed.”
“It is not, because the Minister is tying its hands in respect of what it should be considering. The Minister is then asking us to accept that he is so great because he is letting it give him advice. This is not good enough and not adequate. It is irresponsible. It is not about saying that everybody has to travel in a certain way and every flight has to be taken away. Everybody takes flights. The question is whether there should be a constant checking, balancing and responsible review to ensure there would be proper measures. The Minister is removing checks and balances and replacing them with his own customised ones. It is not good enough in respect of what the ultimate picture, including the ultimate economic picture, and the fines, collectively, will be for everybody else.”
“(c) the furtherance of the national transition objective, and (d) the objective of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State. Those are pretty reasonable things to think about, but the obligation to think about them is being removed. This is what is there. This is what disapplying section 15 means in respect of saying a review can be done, an environmental assessment undertaken and everything else. The Minister would not be removing that obligation unless he was pretty sure that the commission, in doing its job with regard to section 15 and actually having to think about climate mitigation and our goals in this regard, might not come up with the answer that the Minister or lobbyists would like. This is why we disapply these things, and then say the commission is doing its job.”
“The Minister has said we will have an environmental impact assessment and he will get the commission to do it, but, under the Bill, it states that the Minister and the commission, in performing their functions, shall not be subject to the requirements referred to in section 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. The Minister has said the commission is going to do a review, but when it does that review, it will not be bound by the pretty reasonable things that are in section 15. It states: A relevant body shall, in the performance of its functions, have regard to— (a) the most recent approved national mitigation plan, (b) the most recent approved national adaptation framework ...”
“It sends a signal regarding what has been described by the IPCC as one of the industries that is hardest to abate. It is one of the areas on which the world has not got a grip. It is an area where emissions are out of control and are not being reined back in. I was clear on connectivity, in that those are very reasonable grounds, if there was a meaningful threat to our connectivity, so I do not oppose that. I am concerned about the money-making as the driving piece in that regard. There are cases to be made, but us doing aviation responsibly is particularly important because we are one of the bigger players, and it is not responsible and does not send a very good signal if one of the major players in aviation internationally decides to disapply parts of its own climate legislation, which this Bill does.”
“I will just respond to that. I will leave aside rehashing the Planning and Development Act. I am certainly very happy with the position I took on those points. The fast-tracking of LNG, which we flagged and were told would not happen, is happening now. I refer to the acceleration in terms of large-energy users and data centres. Those were the concerns hiding behind the windmills discussion. Of course, I wanted to see accelerated renewable energy, but we have a problem, which is that we are accelerating a number of the problems as well. That is why having proper checks and balances is important. The fact we are a major player internationally on aviation is why we have a particular responsibility. Coming back to that comment on differentiated responsibilities, this is why how we do aviation particularly matters.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I know we have other sections and amendments to get to but this seems to be more bespoke than what is included in section 15. Section 24 requires the preparation of an environmental impact assessment. That is clear. However, the question is how that assessment will be considered. I am concerned about the disapplication of regulation 2. In the performance of the functions, it is having regard to the objectives of the habitats directive. There is an environmental impact assessment but in terms of the binding impact of the regulation, I am concerned that it may be diluted through a more bespoke measure. I understand we will have further opportunity to engage on that. I am opposed to section 18.”
“Whether or not the Minister disapplies the climate Act we still have to hit the same targets and that will have to come from somewhere else. Some other sector will have to step up or else we will have to pay fines, or more significantly the costs that are paid globally for a kind of reckless acceleration in emissions at a time when we should be shifting our approach.”
“We need jobs in the areas that are going to be sustainable, properly environmentally monitored that will deliver for us so that we can ensure people can both work and live on a safe and fair planet. That is the piece that needs investment rather than throwing in the numbers of the persons who may get the downstream jobs when we know the major beneficiaries of this are a handful of small business owners who have had a very successful lobbying campaign. They are the major beneficiaries in respect of this. The cost, including the cost in terms of the fines, if we look at the money side of it, that will be paid, are the costs that will be paid by the public for Ireland failing to meet its targets. Those are the straight financial costs.”
“There are all these places that the flights will be going to, where we do not know how the emissions are being measured or what the impacts will be, but what we do know is that by disapplying section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act, we are trying to make sure that the Minister and the Commission do not have to think about the Paris Agreement or the ultimate objective, which is to keep our planet livable. It was 1.5°C; it will now be 2°C if we are lucky. There is a significant environmental dilution here. With respect, if we are in a period when we should be looking to have a just transition, it is not simply a matter of saying I can tag a number and say there are jobs in this. There are lots of jobs in it.”
“It is already a bit of weird black box whereby in the context of our national emissions, we are only capturing internal flights. On the European trading scheme, we are capturing flights within Europe and there is no capturing, except for the IPCC when it produces its now annual reports telling us that we are heading off a cliff. It is the only one capturing the global piece because there is not a global mechanism of accountability. That was meant to be coming in 2027, but, of course, countries like America have left the Paris Agreement.”
“That can be the environment in which the community is being spoken about or operating in, and they are not just working but living in, which many of them care about as well. It also has an impact on our environment. Depending on when the guillotine falls, I hope we will have an opportunity to come back to this, but disapplying the checks and balances and the tools we have has an extraordinarily negative consequence. This part of Dublin is also a big horticultural area. Where is the consideration of the habitats directive and the birds directive? They must be factored in too. We also look to the fact of aviation emissions being a massive factor in the kind of climate breakdown that we are seeing globally. They are not adequately captured.”