Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I want to comment on the group of amendments. I commend Deputy Matthews on introducing his amendments, whose thrust I strongly support. There is no question that there is an absolutely compelling case for sustainable public transport in planning and development. Building transport-oriented communities is what we should be doing. New housing developments, affordable housing and all other types of housing should be very much aligned with public transport provision. It is very frustrating that expenditure under the national development plan and our capital plan is not strongly aligned with housing provision where housing is needed. This is done at a political level. It is almost as if we need one large project for everyone in the audience as opposed to planning according to housing and population needs.

That has a major effect on people and communities and involves a significant sustainability cost. Planning is an area that has absolutely failed. Between 2002 and 2006, 4% of the growth in population took place in our main five cities. That is a planning disaster. Ireland's energy consumption from 1990 to 2007 increased by 83%; at the same time, our transport energy consumption increased by 181%, which is off the charts. Those two figures are not in the same timeframe but are related. We built a huge volume of car-dependent housing outside of cities and urban areas and outside of public transport connections. That leads to car dependency, increased energy costs and pollution, increased costs for individuals and massive impacts on sustainability. As Deputy Ó Broin said, the Bill is very specific on measures which it is on the public record that some developers have lobbied for. They are specific and clear in the Bill but when it comes the kind of measures we need in the interests of all of us in society and of the environment, things become vague and we do not have it spelt out clearly the way it should be. It should not require these amendments. Now the amendments have been tabled, they should of course be accepted. If the Minister of State is not happy with exactly how they are, we should hear how they will be addressed on Report Stage.

Amendment No. 14 is important because many of the other amendments rest on it. The definition needs a bit of work to be more explicit about prioritising the needs of disabled people. They can fit in implicitly but need explicit prioritisation in that hierarchy of road users. The hierarchy is silent on transport of goods and emergency vehicles. Where do they fit in? I fully support the main thrust of the amendments.