Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I very much support amendment No. 31. It is important to see the expansion of the definition of "transport infrastructure" to include, specifically, infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians. I am delighted to see that. I hope we can all support it.

I endorse Deputy Matthews’s comments on rights of way. I tabled amendments in this regard tabled on Committee Stage, as he knows, and we had good engagement on this important issue, but it is a matter of genuine regret that we do not have time to debate further the matters of active travel infrastructure and rights of way that are at issue in this group of amendments. We have less than five minutes to discuss the current group and no prospect of reaching the critical group of amendments, Nos. 78 to 90, inclusive, that deal with the Government's proposals on LNG terminals. That is a source of justifiable frustration among those of us in opposition because this is the first time we have had a chance to debate this.

I acknowledge that the Minister responded to us to some extent, in respect of the first group of amendments, when a number of us raised issues relating to LNG terminals and concerns. He came back to us on that but we have not had the proper debate on the amendments that we would have had if we had been given more time and had there not been a guillotine.

I acknowledged earlier the progress the Green Party has made in government on so many issues, including active travel and active transport infrastructure, but unfortunately the provision that could see LNG terminals designated as strategic infrastructure seeks to undermine that progress. It has been described as gaslighting stated Government policy, which is against LNG terminals and the importation of fractal gas. We do not have time to debate that properly in this House, and, critically, we will not have time to put our amendments to the Government amendments to a vote. That is a matter of real regret. I do not believe the Minister can say anything to reassure us on this because we are against the clock. That is an unfortunate development. We are justified in expressing our strong opposition and objection to it. Many of us will be forced to vote against the Bill even though we accept the need for planning reform. There is much that is wrong with this Bill and the process by which we are debating it.

See this speech in context