John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We are depending on the Minister of State to pass on our comments to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. As my colleague, Deputy MacSharry, has said, the context for this debate is the worsening congestion in Dublin. As my party's Dublin spokesperson, I am conscious that congestion in the city is increasing on a daily and weekly basis. As the Minister of State is aware, Dublin is now known as the slowest moving city in Europe. When all of the accumulated hours are added up, it is estimated that the average person in Dublin spends ten days sitting in traffic each year. As I have said in this House previously, congestion is costing the economy approximately €350 million. It is predicted that this will increase to almost €3 billion by 2030.

The Minister, Deputy Ross, has weighed in on other Government portfolios, including social protection and - most notably - justice. Nobody from Fine Gael other than the Minister of State, Deputy Griffin, is present for this debate. Nobody in Fine Gael seems to weigh in on the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. Transport has been neglected. The Minister is broadly disengaged from the issues that will fill the gap between now and 2027, when the metro will come on stream and BusConnects will be delivered. We are trying to fill the gap by bringing climate action-friendly legislation before this House.

Deputy MacSharry and I admit that e-scooters are not a silver bullet. They have a small part to play. They are one of many things that can contribute in a small way to lessening and overcoming the chronic congestion we are increasingly experiencing. Given that this is one of the first genuine climate action Bills to have been brought before the House, I am disappointed no Green Party Deputies are present. I exhort them to support this legislation when it is put to a vote. I would be very surprised if they did not do so.

The Minister of State, like all Deputies who are worth their salt, will know that the whole transport technology space is evolving very quickly. Two years ago, e-scooters would not have been considered as a possible response to traffic congestion other than in places like China. As a result of a splurge of activity in the US, many people have been trying to make money quickly. Our Bill is perfectly timed to take advantage of the mistakes that were made in other countries where e-scooters were introduced in advance of the introduction of regulations. In many such countries, e-scooters were banned from certain campuses, cities and towns because they were seen as a nuisance. As Deputy MacSharry has said, in this Bill we are trying to create a legal framework for ensuring e-scooters are safe for the public to use.

I would like to refer to an interesting article that was published in The New York Timeslast year. I read it because I was aware that the US has a great deal of experience in this area. It was written by a journalist who wanted to experience the scooter craze for himself by spending a week using shared e-scooters, like the Dublin city bikes scheme, as his primary mode of transportation. The article states:

I rode them to meetings, ran errands across town and went for long joy rides on the Venice Beach boardwalk. In all, I took more than a dozen scooter rides, from just a few blocks to several miles. And here's my verdict: E-scooters might look and feel kind of dorky, but they aren’t an urban menace or a harbinger of the apocalypse .... Like the earliest ride-hailing providers, many e-scooter companies have taken a , dumping thousands of vehicles on city streets with no permits and little advance notice. This tactic has not endeared them to cities [which have ended up paying fines, etc] .... Emerging technology should always be scrutinized.

In this legislation, we are trying to put in place a model of best practice which learns from the mistakes of other countries. As we have said, we are completely open to amendments in this regard.

According to the article in The New York Times, the perception among the public is that there are three major issues with e-scooters. The first perceived issue is that "Scooters are a public safety hazard". As Deputy MacSharry has pointed out, the RSA could approach this issue by setting speed limits and requiring people to use crash helmets. Some providers are providing lessons because some people fall off when they take a ride on an e-scooter for the first time. However, people are far less likely to fall off than they anticipate. The second perceived issue is that "Scooters are cluttering sidewalks, roads and other public spaces". Our legislation reassures the public that this simply will not happen. The third perceived issue is that "Scooters are annoying symbols of tech-world elitism". In fact, they are incredibly cheap, incredibly affordable, flexible and agile. As we have said, e-scooters alone will not solve the congestion problems of Dublin or any other urban area. I know Deputy Butler will speak about them from a Waterford perspective. E-scooters should be a small part of our effort to deal with the problem of chronic traffic congestion.

The technology in this area has evolved since e-scooters started to be introduced. It is continuing to evolve. It is clear that in respect of technology and e-technology, the Government has put all of its eggs in the basket of e-cars. The climate action plan, which is a laudable document, does not mention the role of e-bikes, which are playing a critical role in cities in countries like Belgium, Austria, France, Denmark and the Netherlands. The plan does not mention the role that e-scooters can play. It is all about e-cars. It suggests that there will be 1 million e-cars in Ireland by 2030. When the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport spoke after the budget last week, he did not mention the provision of tax incentives, tax deductibles or general funding for the provision of e-scooters and e-bikes. Equally, there were no incentives for associated infrastructure.

The Government has had eight years to try to introduce these initiatives. Its cupboard is clearly bare when it comes to technological solutions and using smart technology to solve some of the problems that face us.

In summary, we do not see why we should delay our Bill for three months. No representative in the House cannot bring the arguments the public are bringing to the public consultation which is finishing in a few weeks. By the time this moves to the next stage, the fruits of the public consultation will be available to everybody. Why kick this into January next year? In his response, the Minister of State, Deputy Griffin, must defend that in a way that the public finds acceptable.

See this speech in context