Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

There is a "but", unfortunately. I wonder if the two can be separated and whether there can be compromise regarding the amendments. If we have to recommend that all current transport infrastructure programmes be revised, I imagine the assumption is a revision downwards or away from investment in some of the projects Deputy Neville, for example, outlined. The people I represent rely heavily on cars. Deputy Eamon Ryan hopes there will be a transition from diesel and petrol cars to hybrids and electric vehicles, EVs. He is hoping that will happen as soon as possible and transport will be decarbonised in that way.

My fear is that large infrastructural projects will be taken off of the table. I refer to those necessary to move people and sustain their livelihoods. These projects are required to allow people get to their places of work, to college and to hospitals to access medical appointments and services. The transition from car to bus or train will not happen quickly enough if we start questioning or recommending another mechanism. I would like to see the standing committee take part of this amendment and have robust engagement on what a 2:1 ratio actually means. I refer to having real analysis of that suggestion and bringing in witnesses regarding what that means.

I am broadly in favour of what Deputy Eamon Ryan is trying to achieve. It would mean having to axe current infrastructure projects in the short term, however. That could have a detrimental impact on livelihoods. What the Deputy is proposing can be done in Dublin, Limerick or Galway. I am not sure it can be done in the towns and villages in between those cities. I would like to keep an open mind, however. I would also like the standing committee to engage further on this matter, if we are keeping in line with the recommendation of the Citizens' Assembly.