asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development if he has employed an economic consultant (details supplied) to report to his Department on the economic feasibility of CIE's electrification proposals for Dublin suburban rail system.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - CIE Proposals.
5.
No, and I would like to avail of this opportunity to say that the Deputy's statements of 21 March 1979 to this House are, therefore, entirely without foundation.
6.
asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development if he has seen the report in a Dublin suburban newspaper attributing certain comments to himself in relation to CIE's rapid rail and electrification proposals and if he would make a statement on the report indicating if he has been accurately quoted.
The report to which the Deputy refers consists of four sentences. The first of these states that the rapid rail plan is not the only option for the future of suburban rail services. That is correct. The second sentence, which quotes me as saying that the existing system could be modernised for less than a fifth of the cost of the rapid rail system, is also correct since the total cost of the rapid rail system is well in excess of £200 million, whereas the cost of modernising the existing suburban line from Howth to Bray would be £42 million or less, depending on which option is chosen. The third sentence states that I blamed CIE for the delay in making a decision. This is not accurate. When asked why the Government had not yet taken a decision on the rapid rail proposal I replied that the Government had not yet received this plan for examination.
The final sentence of the report, which states that CIE have sought sanction for electrification of the suburban rail as a first stage and that the Government had asked for details of the entire plan, is correct.
In the newspaper Southside it was very clearly attributed to the Minister that he held CIE responsible for the situation and the phrase “to blame” was included in the front page report.
I can only repeat my reply. The third sentence states that I blamed CIE for the delay in making a decision. This is not accurate. When asked why the Government had not yet taken a decision on the rapid rail proposal I replied that the Government had not yet received this plan for examination.
Accepting that the Minister does not hold CIE responsible——
I did not say whether they were responsible or not.
——is there any prospect of the £30 to £40 million being made available to CIE even to commence a coach-building programme? The company have not only informed us but also the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies that they urgently need 100 coaches to ensure that the whole passenger rail system does not fall to pieces. As the Minister knows, in his own constituency people are travelling in coaches that have been rebuilt four or five times.
I sympathise with the Deputy's concern for the whole question of the modernisation of the transport system and future employment in the relevant sectors of the coach-building industry. However, I can only repeat what I said in the final section of my reply, namely, that I pointed out that the Government had asked for details of the entire plan but that CIE had sought sanction for electrification of the suburban rail services. The only proposal currently before the Government is the one for modernising the suburban rail services. There are no proposals to discuss the rapid rail transit system or the coach-building programme to which the Deputy has referred.
Is there any prospect of an early decision by the Government? The Government have had various proposals from the board of CIE——
The Government have not had proposals.
They have. I can supply the minutes of the Joint Committee.
The only proposal currently before the Government is a proposal for improvement of the suburban rail system.
Is it not fair to say that there has been no response to any proposal, irrespective of its content, from the Department of Transport and Power or from the Minister? There has been no response to proposals for rapid rail, for a coach-building programme or for electrification. All of these proposals have filtered through.
The only proposal currently before the Government is the proposal for the electrification of the suburban rail services. That proposal has been examined by the Government at a number of meetings and examination and discussion are continuing. I expect a decision at an early date.
Is it not the case that the Minister is playing with words when he speaks of proposals? Is it not the case that the electrification scheme for improvement of the suburban rail system is phase 1 of a multi-phase proposal and that he has already received outline proposals in relation to the latter part?
That is a reasonable inference which has been drawn by many people. It appears to be the basis for the previous question in Deputy Quinn's name to which I have already referred where I indicated that his remarks were entirely without foundation. It is the sort of assumption that many people would make. There is no proposal before the Government dealing with the entire transport system, rapid rail proposal or anything else in the Dublin area. There has been a specific proposal relating only to the improvement of the existing rail network.