Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Okay, that is fine. I will speak to it then.

We welcome the debate on the national development plan, which contains many positive measures. We would like to see the MetroLink and DART+ progressed rapidly in order that people might be helped to get out of their cars. It is regrettable, however, that the 2027 completion dates for both the MetroLink and DART+ have been removed from the plan and that no dates at all are provided. While the western rail corridor and the Navan rail line are mentioned in passing, no firm commitment is provided in respect of these important projects. We hope that the national development plan is not just a booklet with a long list of projects to keep backbenchers happy, but, rather, that it is a serious plan to address the deficits in our infrastructure.

I agree with Senator Garvey that lower fares will be key to achieving a reduction in transport emissions. The Government has an important role in encouraging more people to use public transport by lowering the cost of fares. This is a key policy of Sinn Féin. We were heartened to see the U-turn by the Minister for Transport who, just a week before the budget, stated that fares would not come down until more people used public transport. This was the complete opposite of the research that we had heard at the Oireachtas committee, which was informed about the London plan and of how the then mayor, Ken Livingstone, did not even countenance bringing in measures such as congestion charges or anything like that until the cost of public transport had been reduced down to £1 per journey and people could jump off one bus and onto another having paid that amount. That is the way one encourages people to use public transport. One has to make it more affordable. It must be so for families to travel together rather than them factoring in that it would be just cheaper to take the car and park it in the city centre. Sinn Féin's alternative budget allocated funding to make public transport free for under-18s.

There are also serious equity issues to be considered in how we plan our transport system. Earlier this year, I published a survey on energy poverty. One of the key findings was the link between domestic energy poverty and transport poverty.I will relate the real lived experiences of a couple of respondents. This survey was carried out months before the cost of living soared or the price increases that have come in. One respondent stated, "I cut back on my food bill or car tax, or I bounce the bills around so that way there is heating" in his or her home. Another person said:

Our car has been off the road since March as we can’t afford tax and insurance. We have to choose between having a car on the road or having energy for the house. This causes great difficulty for me personally as it has an effect on me being able to attend my hospital appointments amongst other things.

These findings mesh with the latest European transport energy poverty index for 2019, which ranked Ireland 25th out of the then EU28 because of the poor access to public transport and high levels of car-constrained citizens, or what I like to call forced car ownership. Nobody should be forced to have a car. One should be able to choose to have a car but one should not be forced to have one.

It is important that the benefits of public transport are shared equitably. Will the Minister systematically review the social impact of transport spending to make sure it is reducing rather than reinforcing inequalities? All present know transport policy can be regressive. The classic example is the bike-to-work scheme, of which I have availed. It benefits workers on higher incomes more than those on lower incomes as the former get a bigger tax break. It is not open to those outside the workforce, such as children, teenagers, pensioners, the unemployed or students. None of them can avail of the bike-to-work scheme.

Another typical example of regressive transport policy is the grants that were available for very expensive cars. Analysis from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform suggests that subsidising 100,000 electric vehicles, EVs, at 2019 levels of support would cost the Exchequer between €965 million and €1.23 billion. That is an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money. It is, therefore, essential that this funding is targeted towards those who need it. We do not want the taxpayer to have funded EVs for people who did not need financial support or to have a concentration of EVs in an area where they are least required. We need to think about how and where the issue of forced car ownership is targeted. There are significant swathes of this country where there is forced car ownership, as anybody from a rural constituency knows. On its current trajectory, the Government will end up directing subsidies everywhere but to the areas where people are forced to own a car. There is incoherence in the policy. The Government should consider increasing EV grants for those on lower incomes. In addition, a grant for buying a second-hand EV should be introduced, as it was in France. That proposal formed part of the alternative budget put forward by Sinn Féin. The aim of such a grant is to assist people with the higher cost of purchasing a second-hand EV and to encourage the purchase of new EVs by sellers.

I will not speak to my amendment until I have the opportunity to move it but I hope that the Minister will take on board the suggestions that have been made in respect of the fact that it is vital to have policy coherence and target those who are most in need of the subsidies. Otherwise, Sinn Féin welcomes this Private Members' motion and discussion.