Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to be making my contribution after the Minister of State's wrap-up speech because there are a couple of points I would have liked him to address. His colleague the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, in his introductory comments spoke about poor air quality in Ennis. Of course, I share his concern regarding the very poor air quality there and the fact that it was over the legal limit for a considerable period this winter. However, I invite the Minister of State or the Minister to come to Cloughlea with me next winter. We will stand there and we will not hear the hum of air-to-water systems. Instead, we will see, or might even smell, evidence of smoky coal being burned. That is not because people in Cloughlea or Ennis or anywhere else in County Clare want to break the law. It is not that they have a disregard for the environment and want to take the option that is more damaging to it. It is because they do not have an alternative.

Retrofitting schemes are being introduced but the constituency I represent is somewhat different from the one the Minister, Deputy Ryan, represents in terms of average disposable income and measures such as that. I do not wish to personalise it in any way but Government Ministers speak about the amount of money they are making available for these retrofitting schemes and the amount of money a person can get back. However, the amount a person has to invest up front in these schemes, which I support - I advocate those who can afford them to engage in them - is beyond the reach of a large and increasing number of people.

I do not have a problem with the Government asking people to take more environmentally sustainable alternatives. I have a problem with it not putting alternatives in place before it does so. That, unfortunately, is what is happening. I appreciate that it is a lot easier to ban something than it is to put an alternative in place. Courts will give injunctions prohibiting people from doing something but they are very reluctant to give injunctions forcing people to do something because that is difficult to do and police. For this branch of government, it is exactly the same. It being difficult to do, however, is not a reason not to do it. The Government simply has to put alternatives in place before people are penalised for not taking those alternatives.

I wish to focus on another example of this, which is the abandonment of the second phase of the northern distributor road. I recently had a meeting with the University of Limerick at which the president of the university spoke about how essential the strategic development of that area is to the future of the university, as well as that of counties Limerick and Clare and the entire mid-west. She has no particular desire to see car traffic increase. In fact, she wants to take cars out of the university campus and introduce more sustainable travel. If the Minister does not want to have a road there, if there is an alternative being planned, that is great - let us hear about it and see what is being planned. There is a railway that goes through Long Pavement and across to Parkway. I suspect Deputy Leddin would be delighted to bring the Minister of State down to see it. If that is not the case, I will do so. I have heard no mention, however, of utilising that railway line and spurs off it to develop that bank of land on the Clare side of the University of Limerick campus or to remove the one-hour traffic jams through the University of Limerick and put a sustainable alternative in place.

I do not disagree with the Government's analysis of the problems we need to tackle but I do not think we can do that by penalising people unless there is an alternative in place. The Government is not sufficiently focused on putting such alternatives in place, be it in respect of sustainable travel around the University of Limerick campus or the area on the Clare side of it that it is hoped will become part of the campus. If we are not going to have a road, let us have a new railway line, tramway or sustainable form of travel. To say that there will be no road and the Government has no alternative, however, is simply short-sighted. Telling people that the Government is going to ban coal but, realistically, it does not have an alternative they can afford - there is an alternative that Government Ministers can afford - is not going to achieve buy-in. I do not disagree with the objectives of the Government but it is not going to achieve them in that way.

I cannot put it any further. I do not wish to disparage what the Government is seeking to achieve. Smoky coal is banned in Ennis but there is a reason people continue to burn it. It is because it is cheaper and provides more heat. I refer to the idea that the Government is going to allow turf to be sold in certain areas with fewer than 500 people but not in other areas. Public health is being cited. Public health was the objective of many measures. A differentiation such as that which has been proposed would be the €9 meal of 2022. The Government can tag on a public health label at the end of it but it is not going to achieve any reasonable objective.

See this speech in context