John Cummins (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I note the request to withdraw amendments Nos. 122 to 124, inclusive. I want some clarity. The Minister of State understands the point I am making about the sequencing. Notwithstanding that one report is every three years and another report is every four years, if we start from 2024, today, and fast forward three years, as is in the Bill, that gets us to 2027, and if we fast forward four years from now, we get to 2028. That is perfect; the reports are one year apart. If, however, we fast forward three years on from 2027, it gets us to 2030, and if we fast forward four years on from 2028, it gets us to 2032, in which case there are two years between the reports. If we keep fast forwarding by three and four years, respectively, there will be three years in the gap, and the next time there will be four years in it, in which case the reports will be produced in the same year, which is not the purpose of this. We want to maintain a year between the reports. To withdraw the amendments is fine, but there has to be a commitment that we will align the reports to ensure that they are one year apart. That is what I have sought to try to amend here, and I think it is reasonable.

I accept that the MASP amendment does not fit exactly in section 30. I have made these points and will continue to make them. This is probably about the definition of what a commuting zone is, but the regional assembly should have a role in defining the boundary of the MASP. The existing MASPs were handed down by the Department, with no role for the regional assemblies or the local authorities. In the case of Waterford - I was on the council - Waterford City and County Council made submissions on the basis that Tramore had been excluded. This is not a parochial issue because only five areas can be defined under the legislation as metropolitan area strategic plans, but nobody has yet justified to me how Shannon is included in the Limerick MASP, Salthill is included in the Galway MASP and Carrigaline is included in the Cork MASP but Tramore, which is a shorter distance from the city than all of them, is not in the Waterford MASP. That results in a lower defined population of Waterford city and, as a result, the population targets for everything we are talking about here are wrong because they do not take that into account.

Whatever way it is achieved, we have to define the commuting zone. I would like the Minister of State to commit on Report Stage to defining the commuting zone, as I have suggested, which would typically be the travel time that is considered reasonable and practical for daily commuting. I think that would resolve the matter and I ask the Minister of State to commit to that.